The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has dismissed an appeal brought forward by a Resolution Professional (RP), underscoring the imperative for RPs to uphold a neutral position in such legal proceedings. The top court’s decision serves as a clear directive that the responsibility to seek appropriate legal remedies rests primarily with the aggrieved parties, which includes entities like the Committee of Creditors (CoC).
Delving into the specifics of the case, the bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, articulated,
“The Resolution Professional should have maintained a neutral stand. It is for the aggrieved parties, including the Committee of Creditors of Regen Powertech Private Limited (RPPL) and Regen Infrastructure and Services Private Limited (RISPL), to take appropriate proceedings or file an appeal before this Court.“
The Justices further elucidated that, when necessary, the Court has the discretion to seek insights and gather facts from the Resolution Professional, particularly if an appeal is initiated by the Committee of Creditors or any third-party entity.
This entire legal discourse finds its origins in December 2019, when the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) gave the green light to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Regen Powertech Private Limited (RPPL). In the aftermath of this decision, the CoC gave its nod to a specific resolution plan. However, the plot thickened when separate applications emerged from various parties. These applications ardently advocated for a merger of the CIRPs of both RPPL and its affiliated entity, Regen Infrastructure and Services Private Limited (RISPL).
The Supreme Court’s verdict not only emphasizes the cardinal principle of neutrality for Resolution Professionals but also ensures that the sanctity and fairness of the legal process remain uncompromised.
