# In the matter of Sunit Suri Vs. Mr. Ahsan Ahmed (RP) SDU Travels Pvt. Ltd.,Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.392 of 2022

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-11-07. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00121. This is a Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.392/2022 filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 7 Nov 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00121
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sunit-suri-vs-mr-ahsan-ahmed-4c811aac

## Summary

### Background

This is a Company Appeal (AT)(CH)(Ins) No.392/2022 filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, arising out of an order dated 20.07.2022 in IA No. 259/2022 in CP(IB) No.12/BB/2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru). The appellant, Sunit Suri, challenged the impugned order, arguing that as a suspended director/shareholder of the corporate debtor, he is entitled to maintain the appeal. The appellant sought to set aside the impugned order, which pertained to the rejection of an application for the removal of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

## Facts

Sunit Suri, the appellant, is the ex-director of the Corporate Debtor. He filed an application (IA No. 259/2022) before the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Bengaluru Bench) seeking the replacement of the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). The IRP, Mr. Ahsan Ahmed, was appointed for SDU Travels Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application, stating it was not maintainable as it was not filed by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) or the Resolution Professional (RP). Sunit Suri, being a suspended director/shareholder, filed an appeal against this order. The appellant argued that the IRP was not acting independently and was influenced by the suspended board of directors and that there was a nexus between the IRP and the Corporate Debtor. The CoC members

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order in IA No. 259/2022 in CP(IB) No.12/BB/2021 dated …

**Ratio:** The power to replace the Interim Resolution Professional lies with the Committee of

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal reasoned that Section 22(3) of the IBC clearly confers the power to replace

…

**Interpretation:** Section 22(3) of the IBC explicitly outlines the procedure for replacing the

…

**Application:** The Tribunal applied this ratio to the case by noting that the application for

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; Shreesha…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Sunit…
- **Respondents:** SDU Travels Pvt.…; Ahsan Ahme…
- **Advocates:** P.J. Sri…; Ahsan A…

## Timeline

- **2022-07-20 — Impugned…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench) passed an…
- **2022-11-07 — Appellant's A…**: The Learned Counsel for the 'Appellant' stated that the Adjudicating Authority passed the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/sunit-suri-vs-mr-ahsan-ahmed-4c811aac