- (1.) Vide order dated 25th August, 2017, we had stayed till today any steps to be taken by the IRP appointed in this case on the allegations of impropriety and impartiality. The matter has been argued at length by the Ld. Sr. Counsels appearing for the IRP and the Corporate Debtor.
(2.) Ld. Counsel for the Operational Debtor has also defended their recommendation of the IRP whose appointment was duly confirmed by this Bench while Admitting the petition on 24th August, 2017. While Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Corporate Debtor has questioned the locus of the IRP to argue out the matter, we consider that since the allegations of impropriety questioning his appointment have been made, he has a right to be heard by this Bench.
(3.) The allegations raised against the IRP by the Corporate Debtor have been countered by Mr. Virender Ganda. Ld. Sr. Advocate, submits that the requisites of an IRP in respect of impartiality, integrity and honesty are essential traits in relation to the Corporate Debtor.;