also not in order and even information memorandum has also factored not all the claims. The RP is engaged in private communication with the member of CoC. Certain matters are also being examined by IBBI in respect of certain objection raised by an operational creditor of CD and potential Resolution Applicant viz., ‘M/s. ZSVM Plywood Industry Limited’. They have also raised the issue that under the provisions of the Code, if the Corporate Debtor is MSME, it is not necessary for the Promoter to compete with other Resolution Applicant to regain the control of the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional has also appointed a known firm which has done several professional assignments with him before appointing them as the ‘Forensic Auditors’ of the CD which reflects the biasness, conflict of interest, coercion or undue influence on the other side and allegations against the promoter. He has also alleged that the RP has allowed SPV and SPC to submit EoI which was not published in the public domain and only facilitated the Appellant. He has also challenged the constitution of the CoC which is against the mandatory provision provided in Regulation 21 (III) of the IBBI Regulations and it is liable to be rejected. It has also been stated by the CD that the appellant was incorporated only on 20.07.2020. In order to enable the appellant, the Resolution Professional has allowed SPV and SPC to participate in the process of submitting EOI as a prospective Resolution Applicant to assist the Appellant. He has also stated that the Code has been amended for the promoters of MSME to file Resolution Plan. The intention of the legislature is that the promoters of MSME should be encouraged to pay back the amount with the satisfaction of CoC to regain the control of the CD and entrepreneurship by filing Resolution Plan which is viable, feasible and fulfils the relevant criteria of laid by the Board and Code.
