In the matter of R K S Home Solutions Marketing and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.
- CitationIA 5409 of 2023 in CP (IB) 575 of 2023
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not displace an Interim Resolution Professional already appointed by it, in favour of a proposed IRP, where the proposal was not placed before the Bench at the time the original appointment was made and no reasonable ground is shown for changing the appointee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. This Application has been filed by the Applicant for appointing Atul Narayan Naik, having IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-003/IP- N00385/2021-2022/14011 as Interim Resolution Professional in place of Udaykumar Bhaskar Bhatt, having IBBI Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-01425/2018-2019/1223.
2. We have heard the Counsel for the Applicant and have perused the records.
3. Perusal of the records reveals that when the Application u/s 9 of the Code, 2016 was filed by the Applicant, no IRP was suggested/proposed for appointment of IRP. Therefore, Mr. Udaykumar Bhaskar Bhat having registration no. IBBI/IPA-001/IP- P-01425/2018-2019/1223 was appointed by this bench vide order dated 10.11.2023. Perusal of the records further shows that after filing the Petition the Applicant submitted Form-2 proposing the name of Mr. Atul Narayan Naik which was not brought to the notice of this bench at the time of the arguments. Hence, Mr. Udaykumar Bhaskar Bhatt was appointed by this bench from the list of the IRPs prepared and approved by the IBBI. Under this circumstance when the IRP has already been appointed, there appears to be no reasonable/ground to IA 5409 of 2023 In CP (IB) 575 of 2023 change the previously appointed IRP. Therefore, we find that the present Application is without any merit and dismissed accordingly. IA 5409 of 2023 is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/- ANIL RAJ CHELLAN KULDIP KUMAR KAREER Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ANKIT
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