Case Note & Summary
The appeals arise from insolvency proceedings of Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) began on 21.10.2021, and a Resolution Professional (RP), Mr. Girish Siriram Juneja, was appointed. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) invited resolution plans; the plan of AGI Greenpac Pvt. Ltd. was approved by CoC with 98% vote share on 27.10.2022. An Operational Creditor, Soneko Marketing Pvt. Ltd., filed Intervention Petition No.18 of 2022 seeking removal of the RP. The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Kolkata) approved the AGI plan on 28.04.2023. Various appeals were filed before NCLAT, which were dismissed on 18.09.2023. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which on 29.01.2025 set aside the plan approval because AGI Greenpac lacked prior approval from the Competition Commission of India (CCI) as required under Section 31 of the IBC. The Supreme Court directed reconsideration of plans that had CCI approval as on 28.10.2022. Following this, the IBBI issued a show cause notice to the RP on 30.01.2025. The plan of another applicant, Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd., was approved on 04.02.2025. On 07.03.2025, the Operational Creditor filed another Intervention Petition No.5 of 2025, again seeking removal of the RP. The RP replied to this petition. On 30.04.2025, the NCLT Bench comprising a Judicial Member and a Technical Member delivered separate opinions. The Judicial Member held that the operational creditor could intervene and directed the IBBI to remove the RP, relying on Sections 97 and 98 of the IBC and Bye-law 23A of the IBBI (Model Bye-laws and Governing Body of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016. The Technical Member disagreed, holding that the operational creditor had no locus and that other prayers had become infructuous. Due to the split, the matter was referred to the NCLT President, and a Third Member was constituted. The Third Member gave its opinion on 10.06.2025, answering two referred questions affirmatively, which led to the Adjudicating Authority’s order on 13.06.2025 disposing of the application by majority view. Aggrieved, the RP and the CoC filed the present appeals. Before NCLAT, the appellants argued that the Judicial Member’s reliance on Sections 97 and 98 IBC was misplaced because those provisions apply only to Part III of the Code, not to CIRP under Part II. They further contended that Bye-law 23A only prohibits a resolution professional from taking up new assignments after suspension of the Authorisation for Assignment (AFA), and does not affect existing assignments. Additionally, they challenged the locus standi of the operational creditor to seek removal of the RP. The respondents defended the impugned orders. The arguments were heard extensively, and judgment was reserved.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the NCLT was justified in directing the removal of the Resolution Professional based on Sections 97 and 98 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Bye-law 23A of the IBBI (Model Bye-laws and Governing Body of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016
