Feb
The NCLAT has dismissed the appeal file by the appellant against the order passed by the adjudicating authority wherein the Authority has allowed the application filed by the financial creditor for the replacement of the appellant by a new Resolution Professional based on the Resolution dated 06.10.2023 passed by the CoC for replacement of the appellant.
The bench noted that when the CoC had not confirmed the appointment of the IRP, the IRP could have been replaced by the CoC under Section 22 of IBC. Further, the tribunal has observed that the CoC never confirmed the appointment of the appellant as the IRP and no evidence has been provided indicating the CoC’s confirmation by a majority of not less than 66% of the vote. Therefore, when the appellant’s appointment as IRP was not confirmed, he could have been replaced by the CoC under Section 22 of the IBC.