# In the matter of Nandish Patel Vs. National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad & Ors. CA(AT)(Ins) No. 233 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2020-02-07. Citation: TCN-2020-NCLAT-00436. The case involves an appeal filed by Mr. Nandish Patel, an Operational Creditor, against an…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 7 Feb 2020
- **Citation:** TCN-2020-NCLAT-00436
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/nandish-patel-vs-national-company-law-tribunal-ahmedabad-ors-ca-5a1ef4f0

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal filed by Mr. Nandish Patel, an Operational Creditor, against an order dated January 20, 2020, regarding the replacement of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of M/s. M.V. Omni Projects (India) Limited. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, had admitted the application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Subsequently, the Committee of Creditors (CoC), with State Bank of India holding 56% voting shares, moved an application for the replacement of the IRP, which was approved by the CoC with more than 66% voting shares. The Adjudicating Authority accepted the Interlocutory Application and ordered the replacement of the IRP.

## Facts

Mr. Nandish Patel, an Operational Creditor, initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s. M.V. Omni Projects (India) Limited, the Corporate Debtor, under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench, admitted the application. Mr. Manish Kumar Bhagat was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The Committee of Creditors (CoC), with the State Bank of India holding 56% voting shares, subsequently moved an application for the replacement of the IRP. The CoC approved the replacement with more than 66% voting shares. The Adjudicating Authority accepted the Interlocutory Application and ordered the replacement of the IRP. Mr. Nandish Patel then filed

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the appellate tribunal should interfere with the Adjudicating Authority's order regarding …

**Ratio:** The appellate tribunal is generally disinclined to interfere with orders passed by the

…

**Reasoning:** The tribunal stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated

…

**Interpretation:** The appellate tribunal respects the authority and decisions of the Adjudicating

…

**Application:** In this case, the CoC, with a majority vote, decided to replace the IRP, and

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Shreesha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Nandish…
- **Respondents:** M/s. M. V. Omni…; M/s. M.V. Omni…; +1 more

## Timeline

- **2020-01-20 — Impugned…**: The Adjudicating Authority passed an order for the replacement of the Interim Resolution…
- **2020-02-07 — Application by Nandish…**: Mr. Nandish Patel moved an Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy…

---

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/nandish-patel-vs-national-company-law-tribunal-ahmedabad-ors-ca-5a1ef4f0