The writ petition challenges the constitutional validity of Regulation 7A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 (the IP Regulations) read with Bye-Law 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016 (Model Bye-Laws IPA Regulations). The petitioner, a practicing chartered accountant and insolvency professional, applied for authorization for assignment (AFA) which was rejected. The rejection was based on the grounds of non-payment of requisite fees and instances of non-filling up of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) forms. The petitioner's appeal to the Membership Committee of IIIPI is pending. A show
…The petitioner, a chartered accountant and insolvency professional (IP), challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation 7A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, read with Bye-Law 12A of the IBBI (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016. The petitioner's application for Authorization for Assignment (AFA) was rejected on 14.01.2020, primarily because of non-payment of the requisite fee and instances of non-filling up of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) forms. The petitioner's appeal to the Membership Committee of IIIPI is still pending. The petitioner argued that the requirement of obtaining an AFA is akin to requiring an advocate enrolled
…Sign in to view the parties.
Regulation 7A was introduced in the IP…
The Petitioner applied…
The writ petition challenges the constitutional validity of Regulation 7A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 (the IP Regulations) read with Bye-Law 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016 (Model Bye-Laws IPA Regulations). The petitioner, a practicing chartered accountant and insolvency professional, applied for authorization for assignment (AFA) which was rejected. The rejection was based on the grounds of non-payment of requisite fees and instances of non-filling up of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) forms. The petitioner's appeal to the Membership Committee of IIIPI is pending. A show
…The petitioner, a chartered accountant and insolvency professional (IP), challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation 7A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, read with Bye-Law 12A of the IBBI (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016. The petitioner's application for Authorization for Assignment (AFA) was rejected on 14.01.2020, primarily because of non-payment of the requisite fee and instances of non-filling up of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) forms. The petitioner's appeal to the Membership Committee of IIIPI is still pending. The petitioner argued that the requirement of obtaining an AFA is akin to requiring an advocate enrolled
…Regulation 7A was introduced in the IP…
The Petitioner applied…