Anoop Kumar Srivastava vs Neerav Bhatnagar

Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)

Present is an application filed under Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘IBC’ in short) by the Applicant-Eka Life Ltd seeking replacement of the Interim Resolution Professional of Sequel Buildcon Private Limited-Corporate Debtor undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

The salient facts of the present matter which are relevant to be noticed are as outlined below:

• The Corporate Debtor-Sequel Buildcon Pvt Ltd was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP” in short) on 16.06.2023 by the Adjudicating Authority, following which Shri Amar Pal was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (“IRP” in short).

• On 07.07.2023, this Appellate Tribunal passed an order staying the constitution of the Committee of Creditors (“CoC” in short).

• On 25.07.2023, this Tribunal took cognisance of a Memorandum of Undertaking (“MoU” in short) dated 12.07.2023 entered between the home-buyers and M/s EKA Life Ltd. (“EKA” in short) in terms of which EKA was to act as the Strategic Financier and Project Partner in the Reverse CIRP of the Corporate Debtor.

• The salient directions of this Tribunal in its order dated 25.07.2023 were that the IRP shall ensure that construction is carried out as per MoU and Status Report be submitted by them after eight weeks. The erstwhile promoters were directed to cooperate with the IRP and arrange to disburse interim finance amount of Rs 75 Cr. through EKA or through their own sources over a period of 6-9 months as per Clause 3A of the MoU. In case of breach of the MoU by the erstwhile promoters, the IRP and/or the home-buyers were given the liberty to seek termination of Reverse CIRP.

• On 16.10.2023, this Tribunal noted that EKA had also deposited Rs 20 Cr. by Bank Draft dated 14.09.2023. The said order reiterated that all stakeholders were to take steps to act in accordance with the earlier directions issued on 25.07.2023 and the construction of the project needed to be proceeded with further. It was further directed that the IRP with the assistance of the erstwhile promoter to take steps for renewal of registration of the project and obtain all other necessary permission to start construction which may be completed within 30 days.

• On 16.02.2024, this Tribunal took note of the Status Report filed by IRP which indicated that the promoters and the IRP had submitted applications before Noida and UP-RERA for obtaining necessary permissions besides seeking Environmental Clearance. The IRP also submitted in the same report that it expected that necessary approvals may be received within one month and thereafter construction shall commence in full swing.

• On 16.07.2024, it was brought to the knowledge of this Tribunal by the IRP that Environmental Clearance had been granted on 27.05.2024 and that map validation was under the consideration of the Competent Authority.

• On 12.08.2024, this Tribunal took note that one home-buyer had expressed concern regarding structural stability of the project.

• On 16.10.2024, EKA filed present IA No. 7159 of 2024 before this Tribunal raising serious allegations against the functioning of the IRP and praying for replacement of IRP of the Corporate Debtor and to appoint any suitable IRP.

Making his submissions, the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant while giving a background of the present matter stated that after the Corporate Debtor was admitted into CIRP, an MoU dated 12.07.2023 was signed between EKA and the Homebuyers which MoU provided that EKA was to arrange and disburse interim finance amount of Rs 75 Cr. and that construction was to be carried out under the supervision of the IRP with the co-operation of the suspended promoter. While EKA had already infused an amount of Rs 25 Cr. towards construction of the project, the IRP on his part had failed to secure the necessary approvals which were a condition precedent for further infusion of funds by EKA.

It was further asserted that keeping in view their status as a strategic project partner and a key financier of the project, the Applicant was entitled to raise questions on the conduct/ misconduct of the IRP in the selection process of the consultants.

It was pointed out that the IRP was related to the Law Firm-Centrik Legalistic LLP (“CLL” in short) which had filed the CIRP petition of the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority. It was added that IRP had formerly served as a Designated Partner in that Law Firm and continued to be still affiliated with CLL. This ongoing and subsisting relationship between the IRP and CLL provided a substratum to their clear conflict of interest which was a violation of the Code of Conduct of insolvency professionals. It was added that the selection process of the Project Management Consultant (“PMC” in short) was manipulated by the IRP to enable the appointment of a related party as the PMC. It was also submitted that the IRP had appointed yet another related party as the Legal Consultant (“LC” in short) in a similar manner without following the due process. Moreover, the fees payable to the Consultants was exorbitant. Releasing such hefty fees to the consultants was prejudicial to the interests of the Corporate Debtor keeping in view the financially stressed condition of the Corporate Debtor.

It was vehemently contended that the IRP had deliberately failed to disclose his association with the PMC, LC as well as CLL. Being related parties, non-disclosure of such association amounted to violation of the Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals. This proximate nexus between the IRP, PMC, LC and CLL attracted the provisions of Section 5(24A)(h) read with Regulation 7(2)(h) of IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulation, 2016 (“CIRP (IP) Regulations” in Short) read with Clauses 1, 3, 3A, 8B, 8C, 14, 23B, 23C of the Code of Conduct as contained in First Schedule and Sections 208(2)(a) and (e) of IBC.

It was also contended by the Applicant that the IRP was trying to mislead this Tribunal by creating a wrong impression that the Applicant having failed to infuse Rs 75 Cr. within the prescribed time line has filed this application to wriggle out of providing the balance funds. It was forcefully argued that they had already infused Rs 25 Cr. which fact has not been disputed by the IRP thus proving their bonafide. Neither have they reneged on their assurance to provide the interim finance in full. Without disputing the fact that a time period of 6-9 months was provided to them by this Tribunal to infuse the funds, it was submitted that the IRP was unjustly insisting on the Applicant to infuse the balance of Rs 55 Cr at a time when they themselves had failed on their part to secure the conditions precedent/requisite approvals which this Tribunal had mandated them to provide. The time line of 6-9 months cannot be read in an isolated manner as it was contingent on fulfilment of all four condition precedents, which obligation has not yet been fully discharged by the IRP.

It was submitted that the Applicant had sought replacement of IRP in the right earnest to ensure that funds infused by them is not misused or diverted by IRP to its related parties instead of using it for running the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. With a view to prevent further manipulations and frauds by the IRP and to ensure timely development of the project and in the interests of justice, it has been prayed to replace the IRP. In the present case, when the IRP has clearly violated the Code of Conduct and failed to act impartially in the discharge of their duties there is sufficient ground for his replacement. It was also submitted that this Tribunal possesses requisite powers under Rule 11 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 to take appropriate action including replacement of IRP.

Rebutting the contentions advanced by the Applicant, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the IRP submitted the IRP meets all eligibility criteria as prescribed under IBC as well as qualifications and experience prescribed in Regulations 4 and 5 of the CIRP (IP) Regulations, 2016. The purported nexus between the IRP and CLL as alleged by the Applicant is an unnecessarily hyped-up exaggeration. It was vehemently contended that in any case the IRP is not answerable to the Applicant since he is merely an interim financer and not even a CoC Member. It was also clarified that the name of IRP had been proposed by the Home-buyers who were the proponents of the Section 7 application and not by the CLL. Moreover, Clause 8B, 8C and 8D of the Code of Conduct of Insolvency Professionals provide that the disclosure requirement is triggered in case of relationships “at any time” or “during three years preceding the appointment”. It was stated that the allegations of the Applicant that the IRP was a partner of CLL was a factum which dated back to a period well before three years preceding his appointment. The date of appointment of IRP is 16.06.2023. The IRP had already resigned as partner of CLL on 02.12.2019 which was four years prior to the commencement of CIRP and hence there was no question of conflict of interest. It was pointed out that the IRP was not a partner or director of the CLL and that the partners and directors of the IRP were also independent of the CLL. It was also pointed out that the IRP had appointed the PMC and LC by following the due process after circulating EOI and invitation of quotes. Moreover, their appointments and their fee arrangements were formalised after informing both the Promoters and the Applicant. Hence, the Applicant is raising frivolous complaints against the IRP at this belated stage to simply overcome their inability to deposit the interim finance corpus in its entirety within the permitted period of 6-9 months which had already elapsed. As regards the mention of non-fulfilment of the two conditions on their part, it was clarified that this was occasioned by pending litigation before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on account of which RERA registration was yet to be obtained. Pending RERA registration, the sale of unsold inventory could not have been permitted by the IRP. It is also contended that while the Applicant has mentioned about Master Agreement 19.09.2023, it has deliberately chosen not to mention the orders of this Tribunal dated 25.07.2023 and 16.10.2023 which has an overriding effect on the Master Agreement and mandated completion of fund infusion by EKA-Applicant within a stringent time-line.

It was vehemently contended that IBC does not allow any intervenor to seek removal of IRP/RP and such powers vest exclusively with the CoC. If the present Applicant is permitted to approach the Adjudicating Authority or this Tribunal for removal of IRP, the special procedure as contemplated under Section 27 of IBC for removal of IRP will be rendered otiose. It was also pointed out that Section 22(2) of IBC provides that the IRP’s appointment has to be first confirmed by the CoC during its first meeting with 66% of voting. Since, there is a stay on the constitution of CoC, the confirmation of appointment of IRP by CoC has not taken place. It was therefore urged that this Tribunal may permit the IRP to constitute the CoC and convene a meeting with the limited agenda of confirmation of IRP as RP. It was submitted that in the proposed CoC meeting, both the Applicant and the IRP could be present to make their submissions before the CoC before the CoC casts its vote either confirming or not confirming the IRP.

We have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully. The short question before us is whether the conduct of the IRP in the given factual matrix gives adequate reason to believe that there was a breach of the Code of Conduct of Insolvency Professionals by IRP warranting his removal and replacement by another IRP.

Before we come to our analysis and findings, it may be useful to take note of the important statutory provisions and relevant regulations framed thereunder. Regulation 3(1) and the explanatory clause of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 lays down that the RP must not have any conflict of interest or business relationship with the corporate debtor, its promoters, or any other stakeholders. Regulation 7(2)(h) of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 provides that insolvency professionals must adhere to a Code of Conduct specified in the First Schedule to these regulations for avoiding conflicts of interest and maintaining independence. It is pertinent to mention that the relevant provisions of the Code of Conduct are reproduced below:

"1. An insolvency professional must maintain integrity by being honest, straightforward, and forthright in all professional relationships."

"3. An insolvency professional must act with objectivity in its professional dealings by ensuring that his decisions are made without the presence of any bias, conflict of interest, coercion, or undue influence of any party, whether directly connected to the insolvency proceedings or not."

"3A. An insolvency professional must disclose the details of any conflict of interests to the stakeholders, whenever he comes across such conflict of interest during an assignment."

"8B. An insolvency professional shall disclose its relationship, if any, with the corporate debtor, other professionals engaged by it, financial creditors, interim finance providers, and prospective resolution applicants to the insolvency professional agency of which he is a member, within the time specified hereunder…

Explanation- For the purpose of clause 8-B and 8-C above, ‘relationship’ shall mean any one or more of the following four kinds of relationships at any time or during the three years preceding the appointment of other professionals…...”

"8C. An insolvency professional shall ensure disclosure of the relationship, if any, of the other professionals engaged by it with itself, the corporate debtor, the financial creditor, the interim finance provider, if any, and the prospective resolution applicant, to the insolvency professional agency of which he is a member, within the time specified as under……"

"14. An insolvency professional must not act with mala fide or be negligent while performing its functions and duties under the Code."

"23-B An insolvency professional shall not engage or appoint any of his relatives or related parties, for or in connection with any work relating to any of his assignment."

"23-C An insolvency professional shall not provide any service for or in connection with the assignment which is being undertaken by any of his relatives or related parties."

It is the case of the Appellant that M/s AMS Consult which had been appointed as the PMC by the IRP was responsible for the critical aspects of the construction work but the PMC was not discharging its obligations properly. The Applicant expressed apprehension of the risks entailed in having an inexperienced PMC team as it could lead to unsafe construction. Highlighting the shortcomings in the performance of the PMC, it was stated by the Applicant that the PMC had put in place a team of two engineers of junior level who lacked the requisite level of experience in the handling execution of large-scale housing projects.

We cannot be oblivious of the fact that it was as much the responsibility of the Applicant as a strategic project partner to ensure the structural stability of the project. In this backdrop, when the Applicant is acting as a strategic partner in the project and therefore responsible for ensuring the safety of the building and answerable to the home-buyers on this count, it was but natural that they desired that the PMC should be competent enough to provide quality consultancy. Since the PMC was responsible for oversight of the quality of the construction, we do not find anything unusual or arbitrary on the part of the Applicant to be assured of the professional competence of the engineering team deployed by the PMC for this purpose and for insisting that the IRP ought to have selected a PMC with proper professional credentials. That the home-buyers had started raising their concern on the structural stability of the project cannot be denied as this was also brought to the knowledge of this Tribunal on 12.08.2024. Irrespective of whether such concerns were expressed by a single home-buyer or multiple home-buyers, it becomes a material factor that cannot be side-stepped once such a concern had been expressed.

On the manner of appointment of the consultants, it is the case of the Applicant that both the PMC and LC had been appointed without following the due process. The EOI/Tender/Bidding process details and the evaluation of the various offers received with regard to appointment of PMC and LC were not provided by the IRP to the Applicant inspite of several requests. The IRP also failed to provide a copy of the contract executed with the PMC. Information sought regarding the credential/experience statement and profile of the PMC alongwith details of key personnel were also not shared. It was also pointed out that the IRP had deliberately supressed the credentials and profile of the PMC and LC as it would have clearly exposed their conflict of interest in selecting and appointing the consultants. It was also alleged that AMS Consultants-PMC was the last entity to submit their bid in response to the EOI and was appointed as the PMC basis their fee quote being the lowest. Their experience and professional credentials were not factored in by the IRP in their selection as PMC. A similar pattern of manipulation of the EOI process took place in the appointment of Pinnacle Law Chambers as the LC of the IRP. Pinnacle Law Chambers which got finally picked up as LC was again the last entity to have submitted their bid and the sole criteria for appointment was again the lowest fee quoted without factoring in other professional credentials.

When we look at the manner of selection, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that there seems to be strange pattern in the manner in which the successful consultants were selected. In both the cases of PMC and LC, the consultants which got selected were the last ones to have filed their bids and the quotes of the last to bid somehow turned out to be the lowest. Still more curiously, the address of PMC and LC was also the same i.e. Office No. 2401, 24th Floor, Corenthum Iconic Tower, Sector-62, Noida and only subsequently the address of the LC changed to Faridabad. What is more surprising and inexplicable is that on the one hand CLL had appointed the same IRP to conduct the resolution process for various entities and on the other hand, the IRP had appointed the same PMC and LC in the CIRP of the other firms also. It is too much of a strange coincidence for the same PMC and LC to succeed in the bid process conducted by the IRP in the CIRP of other entities. The allegation of manipulation in the selection process thus cannot be ruled out altogether.

Keeping in mind the status of Applicant as a strategic project partner and a key financier of the project, it does stand to reason for them to have raised questions on the manner of selection of consultants followed by the IRP when they were not satisfied with the quality of services rendered. From material on record, we notice that the Applicant had issued letters to the IRP to clarify the manner in which these consultants were appointed including details of their credentials, professional profile, work experience, man power and HR structure etc. The stone-walling of such relevant information by the IRP does create room for suspicion on the conduct of the IRP of trying to conceal/supress relevant and necessary facts. The apprehensions of the Applicant with regard to the manner of appointment of the consultants ought to have been allayed by the IRP rather than create a shroud of opacity.

Given this backdrop, the reluctance on the part of IRP to share information on the bidding process and professional profiles of the consultants creates in our mind an iota of doubt on the fairness and transparency of the selection process adopted by the IRP and lends credence to the allegation made by the Applicant of manipulation by the IRP of the EOI process so as to enable the appointment of related parties.

It is also the case of the Appellant that the IRP was related to the Law Firm, CLL which had filed the CIRP petition of the Corporate Debtor before the Adjudicating Authority. As proof of their proximity, it was submitted by the Applicant that the CLL had filed four other CIRP petitions and in all of them the present IRP was nominated to conduct the CIRP process. Prima-facie, we are not much impressed by this assertion of the Applicant since in terms of the statutory provisions of the IBC, the appointment of IRP is the prerogative of the Operational Creditor or Financial Creditor or Corporate Debtor subject to approval of the Adjudicating Authority. Hence it would be a little too far-fetched to believe that CLL had a role to play in the selection of IRP in the other entities undergoing CIRP.

We now proceed to dwell upon another set of allegations raised by the Applicant to substantiate that there was continuing and subsisting professional association and monetary dealings between the IRP and CLL. It was contended that IRP had formerly served as a Designated Partner in CLL and continued to remain affiliated with CLL by virtue of having close association with Shri Prit Pal, the current Designated Partner of CLL. The IRP held that it was misconceived on the part of the Applicant to make this allegation since the IRP’s association with CLL had terminated more than 3 years back. Since the Code of Conduct stipulated making disclosure of related parties only to a period of upto 3 years preceding the appointment of the insolvency professional, there was no need on the part of IRP to have disclosed such information.

However, what is pertinent to note is that the IRP had business/shareholding in companies jointly with Prit Pal Singh who is the existing Designated Partner of CLL. Their joint shareholding is noticed in the case of Centrik Suportiaz Foundation (‘CSF” in short) and Novative Solution Pvt. Ltd. (“NSPL” in short). In both these entities, Amar Pal, the present IRP and Prit Pal Singh are joint shareholders. Moreover, both the IRP and Prit Pal Singh, present Designated Partner of CLL are directors of CSF which again establishes clear nexus between the IRP, CLL and CSF. Yet more intriguing is that as per MCA website, CSF and CLL has been shown to share the same registered address as 705, 7th Floor, Pragati Tower, 26-Rajendra Place, New Delhi. Even the e-mail address of CSF and CLL show @centrik.in as a common domain name. Even NSPL uses the same common domain name “Centrik.in” which domain name was owned by the present IRP. Interestingly we notice that the website of CLL, https://www.centrik.in also continues to show the name of the IRP in the category of “Our Experts”. The screenshot of the website of CLL has been placed by the Applicant at Annexure-A13 which also establishes the ongoing and subsisting relationship between the IRP and CLL. Besides association between IRP and CLL, there is incidence of relationship between IRP and the PMC. The sole proprietor of PMC, Shri Amandeep Saxena was a business partner of the IRP in other business entities like Himacus Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (HEPL). Even if we accept the contention of the IRP that the IRP had ceased to be a shareholder in HEPL from 24.05.2019 as is evident from the amended Articles of Association and Memorandum of Association of HEPL, the association prior to that period is an admitted fact. The two also had common business interest and connection in Timber Touch India Pvt. Ltd. (TTIPL) and Triumph Concepts Pvt. Ltd. (TCPL). These entities have also been using the common email address i.e. info@centrik.in; support@centrik.in which are indicative that the PMC was a related party of IRP. The domain name associated with the IRP is also used by Amandeep Saxena, proprietor of PMC and Prit Pal Singh, Designated Partner of CLL, which all go to corroborate IRP’s relationship with all these entities at some point of time.

It was contended by the Applicant that the IRP having deliberately failed to disclose his associations with the PMC, LC as well as CLL which were related parties tantamount to violation of the Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals. There was a clear breach of fiduciary duties on the part of the IRP besides conflict of interest in the appointment of the consultants. Hence the IRP should be immediately replaced. Per contra, the IRP has justified non-disclosure of its association with CLL, PMC and other related business entities on the ground that Clauses 8B, 8C and 8D of the Code of Conduct apply only to a period of 3 years preceding their appointment of IRP and since their association had terminated more than 3 years back, it need not have been disclosed. We are of the considered view that this cannot come to the rescue of the IRP since in terms of Clause 8C of the Code of Conduct, the disclosure requirement comes into play “at any time” when the IRP is a key managerial person, a partner of a related party or a partner or director of the concerned company, firm or LLP. The explanatory clause therein clearly states that the “relationship” shall means any one or more of the following four kinds of relationships “at any time” or “during three years preceding the appointment of IRP”. The IRP was therefore obligated in the interest of transparency to disclose and notify the stakeholders of such relationship with CLL, PMC and LC as IRP continued to be current shareholder/director in entities such as CSF, HEPL, TTIPL and TPCL. The IRP has also acted in contravention of IBBI Circular No. IP/005/2018 dated 16.01.2018 on “Disclosures by Insolvency Professionals and other Professionals appointed by Insolvency Professionals conducting Resolution Processes”. This circular defines “relationship” to include where insolvency professional or the other professionals are a shareholder, Director, Key Managerial Personnel or partner of the related parties. IRP has violated the Code of Conduct and in the process failed to act impartially in the discharge of its duties.

This brings us to the contention of the IRP that only when they informed the Applicant about the expiry of the time-line for balance fund infusion that the Applicant raised the issue of conflict of interest. Thus, the Applicant was only trying to wriggle out of its obligations envisaged in the MoU dated 12.07.2023. The Applicant has failed to provide any concrete reply by when the balance interim finance will be paid. Moreover, when the Promoters have agreed to infuse funds which the Applicant has failed to infuse, the Applicant have no locus to file the instant application. These arguments were repelled by the Applicant by stating that the IRP was trying to mislead this Tribunal by creating a wrong impression that the Applicant had failed to infuse Rs 75 Cr. within the prescribed time line. The time-line of 6-9 months cannot be read in an isolated manner since it was contingent on fulfilment of four condition precedent by the IRP which remained unfulfilled.

When we look at the terms of the Master Agreement dated 19.09.2023, we notice that after the initial infusion of Rs 20 cr as advance, the rest of the Rs. 55 cr was to be infused upon fulfilment of the condition precedent by the IRP. Annexure-1 of the Master Agreement provides for the following four conditions precedents which were to be met by the IRP which read as follows:

(i) The IRP shall give consent required to ensure the unsold inventory can be sold as per the law without any hindrance.

(ii) Procure Environment Clearance for the project within four months from the dated of this agreement (with a grace period of 30 days).

(iii) Procure RERA extension/approval for all phases of the project within 4 months from the date of this agreement (with a grace period of three months).

(iv) Application for revalidation of all approvals including for all expiry/applicable approvals including revised building plan from Noida Authority.

Items no. (i) and (iii) above are admittedly still pending while items no. (ii) and (iv) above have been achieved.

The Applicant has indisputably infused sums of money to the tune of Rs 25 Cr. to ensure that construction is continued while it is also indisputable that the conditions precedent have not been fulfilled by the IRP. In the given facts and circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the Applicant that when two of the condition precedent remain unmet on the part of the IRP, it does not behove of the IRP to put blame on the Applicant for not infusing the balance amount. The Applicant not having evaded its responsibility to contribute to the interim financing nor having refused to infuse the balance funds, we do not find substance in the contention of the IRP that the Applicant had filed this application to cover up its inability to provide the balance amount.

In the conduct of Reverse CIRP, the relationship between the IRP and stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor including home-buyers and interim financier is built on trust. Once this trust is belied, it has the potential to jeopardise the resolution process. In the present case, the IRP has been found to be forthcoming in parting with all relevant information with regard to the credentials of their consultants to the Applicant. As a key financier, the Applicant had a definite stake in the manner of appointment of the PMC and LC. The contention of the IRP that the consent of the Applicant had been obtained before the appointment of the PMC and LC has been denied by the Applicant. The IRP had merely informed the Applicant regarding the appointment of PMC post their appointment which cannot be viewed as their concurrence after consultation. The requisite and optimal level of cooperation from the consultants appointed by the IRP is also found amiss. The consultants have also been paid hefty fees already but the services have not been found satisfactory. The performance of these consultants and payments defrayed to them had implications on both the physical progress of the construction of the project and running of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern and its financial health. For a Corporate Debtor which was already financially stressed and insolvent, payment of fees by the IRP to related party consultants without commensurate services forthcoming from them constituted sufficient ground to seek change of the IRP. The Applicant definitely enjoys locus standi to file the present application since it has been infusing funds into the project for the benefit of all stakeholders including the home-buyers. There is merit in the application filed by the Applicant seeking replacement of the IRP with another IRP who can better safeguard the interest of all stakeholders, especially home-buyers.

In the given backdrop, we are of the considered view that there is incidence of infringement of the Code of Conduct of the Insolvency Professionals by the present IRP for not having disclosed their relationships or potential conflicts of interest in the appointment of consultants. To prevent further abuse of process and to meet the ends of justice, we direct the removal of the IRP forthwith and the consultants appointed by them. We allow the application and direct for replacement of present IRP. The copy of this order be placed before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority to immediately appoint a new IRP in accordance with the statutory provisions of IBC and regulations framed thereunder. No costs.