CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   The Insolvency Code vests the management of ... Start Learning for Free
The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.
A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.
In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.
Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false?
  • a)
    True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.
  • b)
    False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.
  • c)
    True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.
  • d)
    False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporat...
The resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority. Thus, even though all the management is vested in the hands of a single person by the Code, yet the independence of the resolution professional’s actions is certainly subject to question.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. Which of the following best summarizes the crux of the passage?

The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors.In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority. In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. During the insolvency, what among the following happens to be the priority duty of the director of the debtor company?

The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. Which of the following best describes the tone of the author?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Anisha was suffering from pain due to appendicitis and required her a surgery that involved cutting her stomach open as per the advice of her doctor, Dr C. Though the operation was successful, after a few weeks, she started suffering from an infection which was a result of her stomach being cut open for the surgery though all the reasonable precautions to avoid any such infection had been taken by the group of surgeons who operated upon her. She visited another doctor, Dr K, after the development of this infection, and he told her that even a laser surgery could have cured her stomach ailment without exposing her to the risk of infection. However, as a matter of fact, there were many doctors in the country who supported the advice given by Dr C to cure her health condition, and there were many others who were of the same opinion as that of Dr K. Nevertheless, Anisha sued Dr C. Decide.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do is essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure.Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.Q. Dr. X operated on a person Z on whom he held grudge as due to Z Dr, X's father had committed suicide. Z was unaware of this and came to know it after the operation. The operation was declared successful but a few days later in the symptoms of previous disease again returned which proved to be fatal. Decide.

Top Courses for CLAT

The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Insolvency Code vests the management of the affairs of a corporate debtor in the interim resolution professional(IRP) on the insolvency commencement date. This implies the imposition of corresponding duties on the IRP. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India directed that, while acting as an IRP for a corporate person under the Code, reasonable care and diligence shall be exercised to ensure corporate debtor’s compliance with the applicable laws, failing which liability would be imposed on the IRP. This is unlike what would have been the case under the Companies Act where consequences would be borne by the directors. Additionally, the Code suspends the powers of the board of directors. Their functions are limited to providing assistance to IRP.A significant verdict of the Court held that the general duties of directors continue independent of, and run parallel to, the duties owed by an IRP. It was noted that the law expects, in an insolvency situation, for more than one actor to play their part, and that the fiduciary duties of the directors are an important part of the protection afforded to the company and its creditors. In other judgment the Court observed that various duties of IRP enumerated under the Code manifest that one individual cannot undertake all. In light of the Code, which mandates personnel of the debtor to extend all assistance to the IRP, the argument that the IRP cannot delegate some of his duties and functions to such personnel has to be rejected. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court laid down that the resolution professional is really a facilitator of the resolution process, whose administrative functions are overseen by the committee of creditors and the adjudicating authority.In another judgment, the Court held that it is the directors of the company who are directly affected by any declaration regarding the insolvency and thus, even though the Code suspends the board of directors, yet the authorization by the same to the managing director to represent the company is valid. There is a lot more to the functions of the directors during insolvency proceedings than providing cooperation to the IRP. One of the foremost duty of a director is to cater to the interest of the creditor during the insolvency phase. With the survival of directors following insolvency, it also becomes necessary to note that there is an active survival of their functions and duties as well, rather than merely carrying out a supporting role. To achieve this, recognition of general duties of the directors under the Companies Act is certainly a minimum requirement, independent of the Code.Q. The Resolution Professional is not actually absolutely independent. True or false? a)True, as the resolution professional works along with the director.b)False, as the resolution professionals looks after the management of the insolvent company.c)True, as the resolution professional is a facilitator in the resolution process.d)False, as the director oversees the work undertaken by the resolution professional.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev