The appeal was filed against the order dated 3rd July, 2020, by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, which directed the replacement of the Appellant, Mr. Kanakabha Ray (Resolution Professional), with a new ‘Insolvency Resolution Professional’ within one week. The basis for this direction was that the Appellant had been in gainful employment of the ‘Financial Creditor’/‘Union Bank of India’ for 34 years and had been dealing with the accounts of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, facts allegedly unknown to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ previously. The appellant assailed the order arguing that the removal of the ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ could only occur with the concurrence of the ‘Committee of Creditors’.
Mr. Kanakabha Ray was appointed as the Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority directed his replacement due to his prior employment with the Financial Creditor, Union Bank of India, for 34 years, during which he dealt with the accounts of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor claimed to be unaware of this prior relationship. The Appellant argued that his removal required the concurrence of the Committee of Creditors. The NCLAT considered the potential for bias due to the Appellant's past employment and the Corporate Debtor's apprehension of bias. The court noted that the Appellant had admitted to a mistake when an instance of deviation was pointed out. The court also considered that the proposed replacement, Mr. Shailesh Verma, had a long association
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
Mr. Kanakabha Ray filed…
The appeal was filed against the order dated 3rd July, 2020, by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, which directed the replacement of the Appellant, Mr. Kanakabha Ray (Resolution Professional), with a new ‘Insolvency Resolution Professional’ within one week. The basis for this direction was that the Appellant had been in gainful employment of the ‘Financial Creditor’/‘Union Bank of India’ for 34 years and had been dealing with the accounts of the ‘Corporate Debtor’, facts allegedly unknown to the ‘Corporate Debtor’ previously. The appellant assailed the order arguing that the removal of the ‘Interim Resolution Professional’ could only occur with the concurrence of the ‘Committee of Creditors’.
Mr. Kanakabha Ray was appointed as the Resolution Professional. The Adjudicating Authority directed his replacement due to his prior employment with the Financial Creditor, Union Bank of India, for 34 years, during which he dealt with the accounts of the Corporate Debtor. The Corporate Debtor claimed to be unaware of this prior relationship. The Appellant argued that his removal required the concurrence of the Committee of Creditors. The NCLAT considered the potential for bias due to the Appellant's past employment and the Corporate Debtor's apprehension of bias. The court noted that the Appellant had admitted to a mistake when an instance of deviation was pointed out. The court also considered that the proposed replacement, Mr. Shailesh Verma, had a long association
…The Adjudicating Authority (National Company…
Mr. Kanakabha Ray filed…