Rathin Amishbhai Majmudar vs M/S Kirtanlal & Sons. And.Anr

IN THE MATTER OF: Rathin Amishbhai Majumdar ...Appellant

Versus

Kirtanlal & Sons & Anr. ...Respondents

With Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 550 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Rathin Amishbhai Majumdar ...Appellant

Versus

Kirtanlal & Sons & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Navin Pahwa Sr. Advocate and Mr. Karan Valecha, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Anjal Amin, Advocate for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

19.03.2024: These two appeals have been filed by erstwhile Resolution

Professional challenging the order dated 04.03.2024 by which order

Adjudicating Authority had replaced the Appellant in the proceeding under

Section 95 of IBC by another Resolution Professional and made certain

observations against the Appellant.

2. The Appellant aggrieved has come up in the appeal contending that there

was no deficiency in the report submitted by the Appellant. Appellant submitted the report within time provided and there was no occasion for

replacement of the Appellant. He submitted that under Section 98 of IBC

replacement can be done at the instance of Financial Creditor. It is submitted

that the adverse observation made by the Adjudicating Authority shall

prejudice the Appellant.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Appellant want to

continue as Resolution Professional seeking reinforcement as Resolution

Professional and further there was valid reason for the Adjudicating Authority

to replace the Resolution Professional and appoint another Resolution

Professional.

4. We have heard the parties and perused the records. The Adjudicating

Authority in the impugned order has given reason for replacement of

Resolution Professional. Adjudicating Authority has referred to its order where

the Resolution Professional was directed to submit a Report. It is also on record

that Report was submitted whereas the observation of Adjudicating Authority

is that certain information, which was furnished by the Financial Creditor,

were not included in the Report. It is submitted that both Resolution

Professional and Financial Creditor prayed for some more time to furnish

additional Report which was not allowed.

5. Be as it may, Adjudicating Authority having found reason to replace

Resolution Professional, we see no reason to interfere in the said order in this

appeal. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

opinion that the adverse observation made against the Appellant regarding

carrying out his duties need to be deleted from the order impugned.

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) Nos. 546 and 550 of 2024 Page 2 of 3

We upheld the impugned order replacing the Appellant. However, we

direct deletion of observations made against the Appellant. Appeal is disposed

of with the above observations.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Mr. Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

(Mr. Arun Baroka) Member(Technical) akc/Mn

Company Appeal(AT)(Insolvency) Nos. 546 and 550 of 2024 Page 3 of 3