Skip to main content

Insolvency - CoC is not bound to record reason for replacing the IRP with another RP

In Power Finance Corporation Limited vs Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal, an Application was filed by the respondent IRP of the Corporate Debtor herein seeking to pass directions to the COC of the corporate debtor to reconsider their decision and to continue with the applicant as the RP.

The NCLT observed that from a plain reading of section 22 of the I & B code which has been confirmed by several judgments of the Supreme Court, is clear that the CoC is conferred with the power of replacing the IRP with another resolution professional and no reason it's to be recorded by the CoC for effecting such replacements. It is the prerogative of the CoC whether to continue with the IRP as the RP or to replace the IRP with another RP. 

The only pre-requisites to be made under section 22 of the code are as under :–

1) The CoC in its first meeting shall pass the resolution with at least 66% votes.

2) Written consent shall be obtained from the proposed RP in the specified form.

3) The CoC shall file an application before the Adjudicating Authority for appointment of the proposed RP.

4) The Adjudicating Authority shall forward the name of the proposed RP to the IBBI for its confirmation and make the appointment after the confirmation.

The NCLAT observed that as in this case the first 3 steps have been completed and the fourth step is awaited, there is no infirmity with the decision of the CoC in replacing the IRP and appointing a new RP in his place.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more