Anil Kumar Former RP Vs. Satiram Yadav Resolution Applicant - Resolution Professional was objecting the Resolution Applicant to pursue the preferential applications. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority . . . . . .

 NCLAT (31.08.2023) In Anil Kumar Former RP Vs. Satiram Yadav Resolution Applicant  [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1077 of 2023] held that;

• Resolution Professional was objecting the Resolution Applicant to pursue the preferential applications. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority . . . . . . 

Excerpts of the Order;    

31.08.2023: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.06.2023 by which order I.A. No. 2877 of 2022 filed by the Resolution Applicant to substitute his name to pursue preferential applications has been allowed.

# 2. The Resolution Plan Para 6.10, which has been approved, itself contemplate the Resolution Application to pursue the application under Section 43, 45 and 66 of I&B Code. The Adjudicating Authority has allowed the application. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that aggrieved by the observation made in the order this Appeal has been filed. Observations are to the following effect:

• “In view of the submissions made by Ld. Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional, the conduct of the Resolution Professional should be looked into by the IBBI. The Registry is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the IBBI.”

# 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the said observations have been made by the Adjudicating Authority since the Resolution Professional was objecting the application and filed reply to the said application after three months and the application delayed for 1 year, due to which observations have been made.

# 4. The Adjudicating Authority has noted the submission of the Resolution Professional that the Resolution Applicant has no locus to file the application which clearly indicate that the Resolution Professional was objecting the Resolution Applicant to pursue the preferential applications. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and observations made by the Adjudicating Authority were based on the correct facts.

# 5. We, thus, do not find any error in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed.

---------------------------------------------