The case involves an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's handling of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. The CIRP was initiated under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), Mr. Arun Jain, was appointed but expressed unwillingness to take up the assignment. The Adjudicating Authority then questioned the IRP instead of appointing a replacement. Several applications were filed by home-buyers, including the Appellants, seeking the substitution of the IRP, but the Adjudicating Authority did not pass any orders. The promoter of the Corporate Debtor is allegedly taking advantage of the pendency of the matter.
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. based on an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Mr. Arun Jain was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). However, Mr. Jain expressed his unwillingness to take up the assignment. The Adjudicating Authority, instead of appointing a new IRP, questioned Mr. Jain's reasons for not accepting the appointment. Several applications were filed by home-buyers, including the Appellants, seeking the substitution of the IRP. The Adjudicating Authority did not pass any orders on these applications. The promoter of the Corporate Debtor is allegedly benefiting from the pendency of the matter. The Appellants, being home-buyers and
…Sign in to view the parties.
CIRP initiated…
Appellant filed I.A. No. 3371 of 2020 seeking…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves an appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's handling of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. The CIRP was initiated under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), Mr. Arun Jain, was appointed but expressed unwillingness to take up the assignment. The Adjudicating Authority then questioned the IRP instead of appointing a replacement. Several applications were filed by home-buyers, including the Appellants, seeking the substitution of the IRP, but the Adjudicating Authority did not pass any orders. The promoter of the Corporate Debtor is allegedly taking advantage of the pendency of the matter.
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. based on an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Mr. Arun Jain was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). However, Mr. Jain expressed his unwillingness to take up the assignment. The Adjudicating Authority, instead of appointing a new IRP, questioned Mr. Jain's reasons for not accepting the appointment. Several applications were filed by home-buyers, including the Appellants, seeking the substitution of the IRP. The Adjudicating Authority did not pass any orders on these applications. The promoter of the Corporate Debtor is allegedly benefiting from the pendency of the matter. The Appellants, being home-buyers and
…CIRP initiated…
Appellant filed I.A. No. 3371 of 2020 seeking…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.