Case Note & Summary
The case involved an application for expungement of remarks made against the erstwhile Resolution Professional, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh, in a judgment dated 06.02.2026. The judgment had set aside the approval of a Resolution Plan for Rancom Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and directed liquidation proceedings, while also making adverse observations against the Resolution Professional regarding his conduct during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The CIRP commenced on 21.12.2023, initiated by Mahavir Medicare, the sole Operational Creditor, who constituted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) due to the absence of Financial Creditors. The CoC approved Mahavir Medicare's Resolution Plan, while Pragiti Construction's plan was not considered, leading to appeals. The Tribunal found that the approval process was flawed as the sole Operational Creditor could not vote on its own plan under Section 30(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Resolution Professional argued that he acted in good faith and in accordance with the statutory framework, and sought to expunge the remarks made against him. The Tribunal acknowledged the peculiar circumstances of the case, including the absence of Financial Creditors and the unique legal challenges faced. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the expungement of the remarks, recognizing that the Resolution Professional's actions stemmed from a misunderstanding of the statutory provisions rather than any mala fide intent. The Tribunal maintained the findings on the legal issues while expunging the personal strictures against the applicant.
Headnote
A) Insolvency Law - Role of Resolution Professional - Statutory Duties - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 30(5) - The Tribunal found that the Resolution Professional failed to ensure compliance with Section 30(5) regarding voting rights on its own Resolution Plan, leading to adverse observations. However, the Tribunal recognized the unique circumstances of the case and allowed expungement of the remarks against the Resolution Professional (Paras 29-40).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the remarks and strictures against the erstwhile Resolution Professional should be expunged.
Final Decision
The Tribunal allowed the Interlocutory Application and expunged the personal observations and consequential directions against the Applicant/erstwhile Resolution Professional contained in paragraph 99 of the Judgment dated 06.02.2026.
Law Points
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
- 2016
- Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
- Resolution Professional duties
- Committee of Creditors composition
- voting rights of Operational Creditors
