The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-IV, during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of ‘Sikkim Hydro Venture Limited’. The appellant, Diwan Chand Arya, was replaced as the Resolution Professional by Mr. Debrath Rana. The replacement was based on a decision made during the 4th Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting, where the CoC confirmed the replacement with 97.98% voting shares.
Diwan Chand Arya, acting as Resolution Professional for ‘Sikkim Hydro Venture Limited’, was replaced by Debrath Rana following an order by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), New Delhi. The replacement stemmed from a decision at the 4th Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting, where the CoC voted with 97.98% shares to replace Arya. The Power Department of the Government of Sikkim, a major stakeholder, had reservations about Arya's conduct. Arya appealed the NCLT's order, arguing it violated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and damaged his professional reputation. The CoC was dissatisfied with Arya's handling of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The NCLAT dismissed Arya's appeal, finding no flaw in the CoC's decision and no evidence of misconduct
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
NCLAT order di…
The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), New Delhi, Court-IV, during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of ‘Sikkim Hydro Venture Limited’. The appellant, Diwan Chand Arya, was replaced as the Resolution Professional by Mr. Debrath Rana. The replacement was based on a decision made during the 4th Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting, where the CoC confirmed the replacement with 97.98% voting shares.
Diwan Chand Arya, acting as Resolution Professional for ‘Sikkim Hydro Venture Limited’, was replaced by Debrath Rana following an order by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT), New Delhi. The replacement stemmed from a decision at the 4th Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting, where the CoC voted with 97.98% shares to replace Arya. The Power Department of the Government of Sikkim, a major stakeholder, had reservations about Arya's conduct. Arya appealed the NCLT's order, arguing it violated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and damaged his professional reputation. The CoC was dissatisfied with Arya's handling of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The NCLAT dismissed Arya's appeal, finding no flaw in the CoC's decision and no evidence of misconduct
…The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
NCLAT order di…