Giriraj Enterprises, an operational creditor of the corporate debtor, filed an application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to be impleaded as the 2nd Respondent in IA(IBC)/1512(CHE)/2024. This application was filed because the financial creditor had filed IA(IBC)/1512(CHE)/2024 seeking the replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP) in RPPL and RISPL. Giriraj Enterprises argued that as an operational creditor with a stake in the CIRP, including the appointment of the RP, it should be impleaded. They also contended that the State Bank of India (SBI) and other lenders do not have the right to appoint the RP, as that power rests with the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under Section 27 of the IBC.
Giriraj Enterprises, an operational creditor, filed an application to be impleaded in IA(IBC)/1512(CHE)/2024, an application by the financial creditor for the replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP) in RPPL and RISPL. Giriraj Enterprises argued they had a stake in the CIRP and the appointment of the RP. They also claimed that the power to replace the RP rests with the Committee of Creditors (CoC), not individual lenders like SBI. The application was filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The core issue was whether an operational creditor has the right to be impleaded in an application for the replacement of the RP, given that Section 27 of the IBC grants this power to the CoC. The applicant argued that the first respondent was
…Sign in to view the parties.
The order was pronounced…
The case was re…
Giriraj Enterprises, an operational creditor of the corporate debtor, filed an application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking to be impleaded as the 2nd Respondent in IA(IBC)/1512(CHE)/2024. This application was filed because the financial creditor had filed IA(IBC)/1512(CHE)/2024 seeking the replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP) in RPPL and RISPL. Giriraj Enterprises argued that as an operational creditor with a stake in the CIRP, including the appointment of the RP, it should be impleaded. They also contended that the State Bank of India (SBI) and other lenders do not have the right to appoint the RP, as that power rests with the Committee of Creditors (CoC) under Section 27 of the IBC.
Giriraj Enterprises, an operational creditor, filed an application to be impleaded in IA(IBC)/1512(CHE)/2024, an application by the financial creditor for the replacement of the Resolution Professional (RP) in RPPL and RISPL. Giriraj Enterprises argued they had a stake in the CIRP and the appointment of the RP. They also claimed that the power to replace the RP rests with the Committee of Creditors (CoC), not individual lenders like SBI. The application was filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The core issue was whether an operational creditor has the right to be impleaded in an application for the replacement of the RP, given that Section 27 of the IBC grants this power to the CoC. The applicant argued that the first respondent was
…The order was pronounced…
The case was re…