Two company appeals were filed against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chandigarh Bench. The orders were issued in CA Nos. 122/2017, 123/2017, and 124/2017 in CP (IB) No. 37/Chd/Pb/2017. The appellants challenged the order dated September 8, 2017. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had decided to remove the existing Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and appoint a new one. The term of the initial IRP (thirty days) had already expired. The court considered Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code), which governs the replacement of the Resolution Professional by the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority was required to appoint an Insolvency Resolution Professional.

Two company appeals were filed against orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chandigarh Bench. The orders were issued in CA Nos. 122/2017, 123/2017, and 124/2017 in CP (IB) No. 37/Chd/Pb/2017. The appellants challenged the order dated September 8, 2017. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had decided to remove the existing Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and appoint a new one. The term of the initial IRP (thirty days) had already expired. The court considered Section 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code), which governs the replacement of the Resolution Professional by the CoC. The Adjudicating Authority was required to appoint an Insolvency Resolution Professional.