Back
Guwahati Dismisses 's Application to Remove RP, Says Internal Policies Cannot Override
The () has firmly ruled that a bank's internal policies cannot override the statutory framework of the ) or a Tribunal order appointing a Resolution Professional (RP). The bench, comprising Judicial Member Shri Rammurti Kushawaha and Technical Member Shri Yogendra Kumar Singh, dismissed an application by seeking the replacement of RP Sudha Sarma in the personal insolvency resolution process of guarantor Rita Mandal.
A Case of Suppressed History
The Tribunal's decision turned first on a . The record revealed that had previously filed a similar application—IA ()/134/GB/2023—seeking the same relief of removing Ms. Sarma. That application was withdrawn by the bank on without any liberty to file a fresh petition. The present application, filed in 2026, made no mention of this prior withdrawal.
The bench held that this
was fatal.
"A litigant approaching a quasi-judicial forum is bound by a
,"
the Tribunal observed.
"
of a materially relevant prior proceeding
on the identical cause of action, particularly one that was tested on merits and withdrawn rather than pressed, is itself sufficient ground to
an applicant,
of the claim."
or Diligent Performance?
On the merits, argued that Ms. Sarma could not act impartially because she was in an adversarial relationship with the bank in separate litigation. The bank pointed to three pending interlocutory applications in the liquidation of , where Ms. Sarma serves as the liquidator. In those proceedings, the bank alleged she had withheld legitimate claims and adopted a hostile stance.
The RP countered that the bank had not cited a single instance of or in the present personal insolvency matter. She argued that her actions as liquidator in an entirely separate case could not be twisted to impute in her role as RP. The Tribunal agreed.
The Primacy of the Over Internal Policies
The bank also invoked its own internal risk management policies, which it claimed prohibited entrusting fiduciary roles to professionals with whom it had . The bench rejected this argument outright.
"The Applicant's reliance on its internal risk management policy is misconceived,"
the Tribunal stated.
"The internal policy of a banking company has no statutory force and cannot override the Tribunal's order of appointment made in exercise of its powers under the Code."
The Tribunal emphasized that
, which governs replacement of an RP in personal insolvency, does not permit removal based on a
or dissatisfaction arising from unrelated proceedings.
"The present case fails to meet the
of RP under Section 98 of the Code which requires specific and demonstrable grounds such as proven
,
, or a
in the very same proceeding,"
the bench noted.
Observations from the Bench
The Tribunal expressed concern that allowing such applications would undermine the independence of insolvency professionals.
"To hold otherwise would
for any dissatisfied creditor to engineer the removal of an IP in a matter merely by pointing to
in another, which would undermine the independence the Code seeks to secure for IPs,"
it observed.
The bench also noted that the bank had eventually paid the fee of ₹1,75,000 to the RP as directed, removing any lingering grievance on that front.
The Verdict
The dismissed IA ()/55/GB/2026 on two grounds: first, for being not maintainable due to of the prior withdrawn application, and second, for failure to make out grounds for removal under . The Tribunal directed that Ms. Sudha Sarma shall continue as the Resolution Professional in CP (IB)/13/GB/2023. The order was pronounced on .
The ruling reinforces the principle that the 's statutory scheme, and the Tribunal's orders made thereunder, cannot be circumvented by a creditor's internal policies or by of drawn from entirely separate proceedings.
