The writ-applicant challenged an order passed by the respondent Board dated 23.3.2023 vide No.IBBI/DC/156/2023 (Annexure-A). The applicant argued that the impugned order was signed by only one member, violating Section 220(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which stipulates that the Disciplinary Committee should consist of "whole time members".
The writ-applicant filed a writ application challenging an order passed by the respondent Board (IBBI) on 23.3.2023. The applicant contended that the impugned order was signed by only one member, which is against the provisions of Section 220(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The applicant argued that the Disciplinary Committee should consist of "whole time members". The court also considered an order passed in Special Civil Application No.13767 of 2022 dated 20.7.2022.
Sign in to view the parties.
The respondent Board passed an order, vide…
An order was passed in Special Civil…
The writ-applicant challenged an order passed by the respondent Board dated 23.3.2023 vide No.IBBI/DC/156/2023 (Annexure-A). The applicant argued that the impugned order was signed by only one member, violating Section 220(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which stipulates that the Disciplinary Committee should consist of "whole time members".
The writ-applicant filed a writ application challenging an order passed by the respondent Board (IBBI) on 23.3.2023. The applicant contended that the impugned order was signed by only one member, which is against the provisions of Section 220(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The applicant argued that the Disciplinary Committee should consist of "whole time members". The court also considered an order passed in Special Civil Application No.13767 of 2022 dated 20.7.2022.
The respondent Board passed an order, vide…
An order was passed in Special Civil…