The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Ordinance No. 9 of 2020, dated 05.06.2020. The petitioner sought a declaration that a specific proviso within the ordinance, which restricts the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution processes for defaults occurring during a certain period, is unconstitutional and ultra vires.
M.Gagan Bothra filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) (amendment) Ordinance No. 9 of 2020, dated 05.06.2020. The petitioner specifically challenged a proviso that restricted the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution processes for defaults occurring during a certain period. The petitioner argued that the proviso was unconstitutional and ultra vires. During the proceedings, the court noted that the challenged ordinance had been substituted by an Act. The petitioner was given the option to file a fresh writ petition if they wished to challenge the new Act.
Sign in to view the parties.
Date of the Insolvency…
Date of the High Court…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Ordinance No. 9 of 2020, dated 05.06.2020. The petitioner sought a declaration that a specific proviso within the ordinance, which restricts the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution processes for defaults occurring during a certain period, is unconstitutional and ultra vires.
M.Gagan Bothra filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) (amendment) Ordinance No. 9 of 2020, dated 05.06.2020. The petitioner specifically challenged a proviso that restricted the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution processes for defaults occurring during a certain period. The petitioner argued that the proviso was unconstitutional and ultra vires. During the proceedings, the court noted that the challenged ordinance had been substituted by an Act. The petitioner was given the option to file a fresh writ petition if they wished to challenge the new Act.
Date of the Insolvency…
Date of the High Court…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.