Suj Infra Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) was under Liquidation. Bank of Bharat is the sole member of the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC). One of the Agenda at the SCC was to replace the present Liquidator R

The present case is similar to the case of State Bank of India v. Mr. Ramakant Gupta, Liquidator decided by the National Company Law Tribunal on January 17, 2024. In this case, the State Bank of India preferred the present application on behalf of SCC for replacement of the present liquidator, who is the Respondent herein, only with the reason that the present Liquidator is not on the panel of the State Bank of India. It is essential to emphasize that in accordance with the statutory mandate outlined in Regulation 31A of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, a mandatory Written Consent Form, as stipulated in Form AA of Schedule II, is a prerequisite for the proposed liquidator's appointment. In addition to the requisite 66% voting percentage to pass the resolution, this form must be submitted before the Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of replacing the liquidator. It is noteworthy that no such written consent has been attached in the present application. Moreover, during its 2nd Meeting, the SCC had approved the agenda of replacement of the Liquidator with 100% voting without giving any reasons for the replacement of the Liquidator. Regulation 31A (11) of the IBBI (Liquidation) specifically states that the Liquidator can be replaced by the SCC after recording the reasons in the minutes of the SCC. It is noticed that there exists a marked difference for the change of Resolution Professional and the change of Liquidator. During CIRP, the CoC has the wisdom to replace the RP if there is a majority of more than 66% without assigning any specific reason for such replacement, as such an option is available as a matter of right. In the Liquidation process, the SCC has to record a specific reason for the replacement of the Liquidator. Nowhere in the instant application has the Applicant recorded any reason, nor has the applicant levelled any allegations or incompetency on the part of the liquidator who is performing his duties in the manner it should be performed. In our view, wisdom or right for the change of liquidator is not available to SCC in the Liquidation process. Recording the above, we reject the present application as we hold that no cogent reasons for the replacement of the Liquidator are provided in the present application. The applicant bank had stated only a single reason to replace the present Liquidator, i.e., that the Liquidator is not on the panel of the State Bank of India. In our view, it cannot be a valid and reasonable reason to change or to replace the Liquidator. The Liquidator is directed to complete the liquidation process expeditiously as per law. Accordingly, with these observations, the present application is dismissed and is disposed of. As per the aforesaid decision, the Bank of Bharat will not succeed in its decision in changing the Liquidator.