In this instance, "State Bank of India" was the "Financial Creditor" that requested the start of the "Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process" against "Corporate Debtor" "M/s. Metenere Limited" under section 7 of the IBC, 2016.
In the instant case titled State Bank of India v. M/s. Metenere Ltd., the issue raised for clarification before the NCLAT was:
Considering the nature of the responsibilities to be carried out by the "Interim Resolution Professional" and the "Resolution Professional," should an ex-employee of the "Financial Creditor" who has previously provided services not be permitted to act as such "Interim Resolution Professional" at the request of such "Financial Creditor"?
With regard to this issue, the Adjudicating Authority was fully justified in asking for Mr. Shailesh Verma's replacement in order to ensure that the "Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process" was carried out in a fair and unbiased manner, according to NCLAT, which held that the "Corporate Debtor's" concerns about bias regarding the appointment of Mr. Shailesh Verma as proposed "Interim Resolution Professional" at the request of the Appellant-"Financial Credit Despite the fact that Mr. Shailesh Verma was not barred from serving as a "Interim Resolution Professional," this is the case.The Appellate Tribunal upheld the apparent apprehension of bias against the proposed IRP as a sufficient ground for his disqualification from appointment as an IRP. As a result, NCLAT denied the appeal.
The NCLAT categorically stated that,
"This conclusion is further reinforced by filing of instant appeal by the ‘Financial Creditor’ who is upset with the impugned order directing the Appellant- ‘Financial Creditor’ to substitute the name of ‘Interim Resolution
Professional’ in place of Mr. Shailesh Verma. This has to be viewed in the context of apprehension of bias raised by the Respondent -‘Corporate Debtor’ for the apprehension of bias necessarily rests on the perception of Respondent- ‘Corporate Debtor’".