The case involves a writ petition filed by a chartered accountant and insolvency professional (IP) challenging a circular issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The circular pertains to regulations requiring IPs to pay a fee calculated as a percentage of their professional fees or turnover. The petitioner contends that these regulations are ultra vires Section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also argues that there is no quid pro quo for the fees being charged and that the regulations involve excessive delegation of power.
CA. Venkata Siva Kumar, a chartered accountant and registered insolvency professional (IP), filed a writ petition challenging the validity of certain regulations issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). These regulations, specifically Regulation 7(2)(ca) and 13(2)(ca) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, require IPs and Insolvency Professional Entities (IPEs) to pay a fee calculated as 0.25% of their professional fees or turnover. The petitioner argued that these regulations are ultra vires Section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, lack quid pro quo, and involve excessive delegation. The petitioner had previously
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Petitioner obtained…
The Petitioner stated that the charging of…
The case involves a writ petition filed by a chartered accountant and insolvency professional (IP) challenging a circular issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The circular pertains to regulations requiring IPs to pay a fee calculated as a percentage of their professional fees or turnover. The petitioner contends that these regulations are ultra vires Section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also argues that there is no quid pro quo for the fees being charged and that the regulations involve excessive delegation of power.
CA. Venkata Siva Kumar, a chartered accountant and registered insolvency professional (IP), filed a writ petition challenging the validity of certain regulations issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). These regulations, specifically Regulation 7(2)(ca) and 13(2)(ca) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, require IPs and Insolvency Professional Entities (IPEs) to pay a fee calculated as 0.25% of their professional fees or turnover. The petitioner argued that these regulations are ultra vires Section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, lack quid pro quo, and involve excessive delegation. The petitioner had previously
…The Petitioner obtained…
The Petitioner stated that the charging of…