# In the matter of  Kanakabha Ray Vs. Narayan Chandra Saha & Ors. CA(AT)(Ins)No. 687 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-08-18. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00162. The appeal was filed against the order dated 3rd July, 2020, by the Adjudicating Authority…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 18 Aug 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00162
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/kanakabha-ray-vs-narayan-chandra-saha-ors-ca-65c39879

## Summary

### Background

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’.

## Facts

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

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in directing the replacement of the Resolution …

**Ratio:** The apprehension of bias must be assessed from the perspective of the party alleging

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Appellant's long-standing employment with the Financial

…

**Interpretation:** This issue concerns the interpretation of impartiality and fairness in the

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the specific facts of the case, noting that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Bansi Lal…; Jarat Kuma…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Kanakabh…
- **Respondents:** NARAYAN CHANDRA…

## Timeline

- **2020-07-03 — Order by Adjudicating…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Kolkata Bench, directed the…
- **2020-08-18 — Appeal F…**: Mr. Kanakabha Ray filed an appeal…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 18 — Duties of interim resolution professional](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-18)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/kanakabha-ray-vs-narayan-chandra-saha-ors-ca-65c39879