The appeal was preferred by the Resolution Professional against an order dated March 23, 2018, specifically concerning observations made in paragraph 4 of that order. The appellant's counsel argued that adverse remarks against the Resolution Professional were unwarranted, as they were not obligated to file progress reports under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The court noted that the Resolution Professional failed to complete the resolution process within the initial 180-day period, which was extended by 90 days at the request of the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Professional.
Anil Goel, the Resolution Professional, filed an appeal against an order dated March 23, 2018, due to observations made in paragraph 4 of that order. The Resolution Professional's counsel argued that the adverse remarks were uncalled for because the Resolution Professional was not required to file progress reports under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Resolution Professional failed to complete the resolution process within the initial 180-day period, which was extended by 90 days at the request of the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Professional. The Resolution Professional did not submit the progress report within 270 days.
Sign in to view the parties.
Order against w…
The court disposed of…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The appeal was preferred by the Resolution Professional against an order dated March 23, 2018, specifically concerning observations made in paragraph 4 of that order. The appellant's counsel argued that adverse remarks against the Resolution Professional were unwarranted, as they were not obligated to file progress reports under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The court noted that the Resolution Professional failed to complete the resolution process within the initial 180-day period, which was extended by 90 days at the request of the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Professional.
Anil Goel, the Resolution Professional, filed an appeal against an order dated March 23, 2018, due to observations made in paragraph 4 of that order. The Resolution Professional's counsel argued that the adverse remarks were uncalled for because the Resolution Professional was not required to file progress reports under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Resolution Professional failed to complete the resolution process within the initial 180-day period, which was extended by 90 days at the request of the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Professional. The Resolution Professional did not submit the progress report within 270 days.
Order against w…
The court disposed of…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.