Bikram Bhadur Through Poa Holder Navin ... vs Committee Of Creditors Of Beoworld ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 1432 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the power to replace a Resolution Professional rests with the Committee of Creditors acting by the requisite majority; a resolution passed by a Committee of Creditors that is existing and functioning, and that approves the replacement, is an exercise of that statutory power. A pending challenge by a suspended director to the constitution of the Committee of Creditors is not, by itself, a ground for opposing the appointment of a Resolution Professional approved under Section 27, and does not render the appointment invalid or the appeal against it maintainable at the instance of such director; the appointment is without prejudice to the outcome of the pending challenge.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Bikram Bhadur, ...Appellant Suspended Director of Beoworld Pvt. Ltd. Versus Committee of Creditors of Beoworld Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Kohli and Miss Akshaya Ganpath, Advocates.
For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
12.11.2025 : Heard counsel for the appellant.
2. The appeal has been filed by the Suspended Director of the Corporate
Debtor challenging the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the NCLT, New
Delhi, Bench-III in I.A. 3611 of 2025. IA was filed by Committee of Creditors
under Section27 for approving the appointment of Shri Rakesh Kumar
Parakh as the Resolution Professional which application has been allowed.
Aggrieved by the said order appellant has come up in this appeal.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed an
application challenging the constitution of the CoC which application
rejected and challenging the said order now appeal has been filed which is
pending Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) 1874 of 2024. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the CoC could not have approved the appointment of
RP.
4. We have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant
and perused the records.
5. Under Section 27, it is the CoC which is empowered to replace the
Resolution Professional with requisite majority. The CoC which is existing as
on date and functioning has passed the resolution for change of the RP
which has been approved the impugned order. The mere fact tht appellant
is aggrieved by the constitution of the CoC and made a challenge which is
pending consideration in this Tribunal cannot be a ground to oppose the
appointment of the RP who has the approval under Section 27.
6. We thus are of the view that at the instance of the appellant, this
appeal cannot be entertained, we do not find any error in the order dated
29.07.2025. Appeal is dismissed.
We make it clear that appointment of Resolution Professional by the
impugned order shall have no bearing on the pending issues raised by the
appellant.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Harleen/MD
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1432 of 2025 2 of 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free