Kj Vinod (insolvency Professional) Vs Registrar of The National Company Law Tribunal (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court has instructed NCLT to file detailed counter as NCLT has proceeded to appoint the Interim Resolution Professional [IRP] different from that suggested by Corporate Debtor [CD].
Facts- The present petition has been filed against impugned order dated 4.6.2025 passed by NCLT with a request to partially quash the order to extent of having appointed Mr.Thangamuthu Viswanathan instead of the petitioner as the Interim Resolution Professional of the respondent No.2, as being arbitrary, sans authority and in excess of the jurisdiction as vested under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code 2016 and violative of section 16(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code 2016 and as also being against the principles of natural justice and thereby appoint the petitioner as the interim Resolution Professional of the respondent No.2.
Conclusion- Held that in the present case, the NCLT has proceeded to appoint an IRP different from that suggested by the CD, Ms.Indumathi Ravi, learned counsel who appears on behalf of R1/National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) will obtain instructions on these aspects of the matter and file a detailed counter. She will also point to those instances where the NCLT has proceeded to appoint an IRP not as suggested by the applicants, either under Section 7, 9 or 10. To add, a reading of Sections 22 and 27 of the Code indicates that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) has the discretion to substitute an IRP. The Scheme of the Act thus, prima facie appears to be that the Board is mandated to accept the recommendation of the applicant, be it, FC, OC or CD, and it is only the CoC in charge of management of the company, that has the discretion to change the IRP.
