Pluto Infrastructures Limited filed an application for initiation of CIRP under Section 10 of the Code. The NCLT admitted the application and moratorium was imposed. Padam, an Insolvency Professional was appointed as Int

Section 34(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides that the Adjudicating Authority shall by order replace the resolution professional, if- the resolution plan submitted by the resolution professional under section 30 was rejected for failure to meet the requirements mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 30; or the Board recommends the replacement of a resolution professional to the Adjudicating Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing; or the resolution professional fails to submit written consent under sub-section (1). Case Law: The matter of replacing the Resolution Professional (RP) was considered by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the matter of ' Devendra Padamchand Jain Vs. State Bank of India '. This case dealt with an appeal by the then RP of VNR Infrastructures, against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad bench, removing him and appointing another liquidator. The NCLAT held that apart from the committee of creditors, the NCLT is also empowered to remove the RP, but it should be for the reasons and in the manner provided under the relevant section. In this case, RP had failed to properly examine the resolution plan and had not stated that the plan he submitted met all the requirements of section 30(2) of the Code. The NCLAT held that the NCLT has jurisdiction to remove the RP if it is not satisfied with its functioning, which amounts to non-compliance with section 30(2) of the Code.