The case involves a writ petition filed by Kj Vinod, an insolvency professional, challenging an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench, in CP(IB)/35(CHE)/2022. The petitioner seeks to quash the part of the order that appointed Mr. Thangamuthu Viswanathan as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) instead of the petitioner.
The petitioner, Kj Vinod, is an insolvency professional.
The petitioner challenges the appointment of Mr. Thangamuthu Viswanathan as IRP by the NCLT.
The challenge is based on the argument that the petitioner should have been appointed as the IRP.
The NCLT order was passed in CP(IB)/35(CHE)/2022.
Sections 10(3)(b) and 16(2) of the IBC are relevant to the case.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) has the discretion to substitute an IRP.
Sign in to view the parties.
Date of the order passed by the Hon'ble National…
Date of the order…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves a writ petition filed by Kj Vinod, an insolvency professional, challenging an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench, in CP(IB)/35(CHE)/2022. The petitioner seeks to quash the part of the order that appointed Mr. Thangamuthu Viswanathan as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) instead of the petitioner.
The petitioner, Kj Vinod, is an insolvency professional.
The petitioner challenges the appointment of Mr. Thangamuthu Viswanathan as IRP by the NCLT.
The challenge is based on the argument that the petitioner should have been appointed as the IRP.
The NCLT order was passed in CP(IB)/35(CHE)/2022.
Sections 10(3)(b) and 16(2) of the IBC are relevant to the case.
The Committee of Creditors (CoC) has the discretion to substitute an IRP.
Date of the order passed by the Hon'ble National…
Date of the order…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.