Rajiv Shrivastava vs Manish Kumar Gupta & Anr
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 835 of 2022
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A Resolution Professional who has tendered resignation is not entitled to carry on further proceedings in the corporate insolvency resolution process, nor to hold or convene any meeting, and a conditional continuation as ad-hoc Resolution Professional pending new arrangements does not confer that authority. Upon the resignation of a Resolution Professional, the choice of a new Resolution Professional lies with the Committee of Creditors, and the meeting to effect that appointment must be convened by a person other than the outgoing Resolution Professional. The corporate insolvency resolution process must not be delayed by the resignation of the Resolution Professional, so the Tribunal may direct that a meeting of the Committee of Creditors be convened by an independent person, with the agenda confined to the appointment of a new Resolution Professional, and with the outgoing Resolution Professional bound to hand over the assets and documents to the Authorized Representative for transfer to the successor.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Rajiv Shrivastava ....Appellant Vs.
Manish Kumar Gupta, Resolution Professional, ...Respondents Three C Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh Malik, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. GP Madaan, Advocate for R2. Mr. Manish Kr. Gupta, RP
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
21.07.2022: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Shri G.P. Madaan appears for the Respondent No.1. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has also been impleaded as Respondent No.2. We permit the Appellant to delete the Respondent No.2 from the array of parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Principal Bench in I.A No. 3375 of 2021. In the I.A No. 3375 of 2021 filed by the Appellant who is a Financial Creditor being Homebuyer following prayers have been made:-
"a) Allow the instant application and direct the Resolution Professional to put forth the agenda for removal of RP before the CoC along with appointment of Mr. Nilesh Sharma as Resolution Professional as considered by CoC and include other Insolvency Professionals, if any.
2 b) To direct the Authorized Representative- Mr. Durgadas Aggarwal to act as an administrator for the voting on the said agenda and appointment of new Resolution Professional.
c) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit so in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. The Adjudicating Authority vide earlier order dated 14.12.2021 has requested the Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Former Judge, High Court of Delhi to take up the assignment as a Commissioner in holding the meeting of the Homebuyers and to elect the Authorized Representative. The meeting has been convened and report has been submitted electing one Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi as the Authorized Representative of the Homebuyers. The Resolution Professional in the CIRP has resigned on 02.07.2022. Shri G.P. Madaan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional submits that although he has resigned on 02.07.2022 but with a condition that he shall continue as ad-hoc Resolution Professional till new arrangement is made.
4. We are of the view that the Resolution Professional who has submitted resignation on 02.07.2022 is not entitled to carry on any further proceeding nor he can hold or convene any meeting. In view that the Resolution Professional has resigned, new Resolution Professional is to be chosen by the Committee of Creditors (CoC). There cannot be any convening of meeting by earlier RP. However, the CIRP cannot be allowed to be delayed due to the said reason. Hence, we are of the view that this Tribunal may direct for convening of the meeting of the CoC and we request Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, to convene a meeting of the CoC within a period of one month from today. Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw shall take assistance of the officer who was nominated by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 14.12.2021. Necessary steps regarding convening the meeting may be taken by the Court Commissioner appointed for this purpose. We are also of
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 835 of 2022 3
the view that in the meeting to be convened under this order the only agenda shall be appointment of new Resolution Professional.
5. With regard to remuneration payable to Court Commissioner, it is for the Court Commissioner to intimate his remuneration to the CoC who shall make the payment as was earlier directed by the Adjudicating Authority in its order dated 14.12.2021. Respondent No.1 erstwhile Resolution Professional who has already resigned shall handover all the assets and other documents to Authorized Representative who has already been appointed who in turn shall hand over the same to the new Resolution Professional appointed in the next CoC meeting. We further direct the Authorized Representative to give his fullest cooperation to the Court Commissioner for the purpose of convening the meeting and for other consequential steps.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to keep this Appeal pending. With the aforesaid directions, we dispose of this Appeal.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy] Member (Judicial)
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Anjali/nn
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 835 of 2022
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