Intec Capital Ltd vs Rajesh Lohia. Irp & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Intec Capital Ltd. .....Appellant Vs. Rajesh Lohia IRP & Ors. ......Respondents

Present : For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Madan, Mr. Himanshu, Advocates

16.10.2019 - The Appellant ('Financial Creditor') has challenged the order

dated 6th September, 2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority ('National

Company Law Tribunal') Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad which reads as

follows:-

"The Instant application is filed by the IRP on

16.08.2019 with a prayer seeking direction upon the

Committee of Creditors for reimbursement of his

expenses and dues. That apart, since he was not

paid regularly he want to get discharge from his

duties at IRP.

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No.1059 of 2019 The Ld. Lawyer appearing on behalf of the

Respondent i.e. COC consisting of Corporation Bank

and INTEC Capital Ltd. is present and senior

manager of the corporation bank is also present in

person.

They have filed their reply on the application so filed

by the IPR with some allegations. But so far COC has

not preferred any application for replacement of IRP.

Though, section 22 of the ID Code refers that if at

all Committee of Creditors wants to change the

Interim Resolution Professional the application

ought to come through Committee of Creditors with

the resolution of the meeting.

On Perusal of the record, it is found that even after

laps of three months from the date of admission of

the application under filed section 9 of the IB Code

the Committee of Creditors has not taken any step

either to pass any resolution to appoint RP and/or

has made any endeavour to file any application, if

at all require seeking any relief against the IRP.

Thereby, they have already wasted three months

time of the CIRP in total ignorance of the intent of the Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No.1059 of 2019admin 2 legislation and the objectives of the IB Code, which

are to be completed in time bound manner. Such act

from the Committee of Creditors is not expected and

the issue with regard to the payment of the IRP is

not the bar in passing any resolution and/or to file

any application before this Adjudicating Authority

for replacement and/or appointment of RP.

The learned PCA appearing on behalf of the IRP

submitted that till date the Committee of Creditors

has not approved the 'Form G' even after completion

of 75 days. Consequent upon which, the present IRP

is not in a position to publish the same in the

newspaper, which is required to be completed

within one month.

Meanwhile, the Committee of Creditors is directed

to clear the dues of the Interim Resolution

Professional till the appointment of new RP without

any further delay.

Accordingly, the instant IA stands disposed of with

the above observation."

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No.1059 of 2019admin 3 From the aforesaid order, we find that 'Committee of Creditors' have been

directed to clear the dues of the 'Interim Resolution Professional' which the

'Committee of Creditors' are required to determine in accordance with law.

Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.

The appeal is dismissed.

[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A. I. S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

ss/sk

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)No.1059 of 2019admin 4