The case involves an application to replace the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) Mr. S. Ramasamy with Mr. Arumugam in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The reason cited for the replacement is that Mr. Ramasamy is not interested in continuing the assignment because he is located in Chennai, while the Corporate Debtor (CD) is located in Madurai, making it difficult for him to monitor the CIRP.
The key facts are as follows: An application was filed to replace the existing IRP, Mr. S. Ramasamy, with Mr. Arumugam. The reason for the replacement was that Mr. Ramasamy, based in Chennai, found it difficult to monitor the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor located in Madurai. The applicant argued that the geographical distance posed a significant challenge to the IRP's ability to effectively carry out his duties. The court found this reason plausible and granted the application.
Sign in to view the parties.
The court order is dated 25.02.2019, directing…
The case involves an application to replace the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) Mr. S. Ramasamy with Mr. Arumugam in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The reason cited for the replacement is that Mr. Ramasamy is not interested in continuing the assignment because he is located in Chennai, while the Corporate Debtor (CD) is located in Madurai, making it difficult for him to monitor the CIRP.
The key facts are as follows: An application was filed to replace the existing IRP, Mr. S. Ramasamy, with Mr. Arumugam. The reason for the replacement was that Mr. Ramasamy, based in Chennai, found it difficult to monitor the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor located in Madurai. The applicant argued that the geographical distance posed a significant challenge to the IRP's ability to effectively carry out his duties. The court found this reason plausible and granted the application.
The court order is dated 25.02.2019, directing…