The case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Chairperson of respondent No. 1, acting as a Disciplinary Committee under Section 220(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The petitioner contends that the Chairperson of respondent No. 1 cannot constitute the Disciplinary Committee because, according to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 220 of the IBC, the Disciplinary Committee should consist only of whole-time members of respondent No. 1. The petitioner argues that there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction for the Chairperson of respondent No. 1 to act as a Disciplinary Committee, warranting interference with the impugned order.
The Chairperson of respondent No. 1 passed an order on 10.05.2022, acting as a Disciplinary Committee under Section 220(2) of the IBC. The petitioner contends that this action is invalid because the Disciplinary Committee should only consist of whole-time members of respondent No. 1, as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 220 of the IBC. The petitioner argues that the Chairperson lacks the jurisdiction to act as a Disciplinary Committee. The respondent argues that the petitioner did not raise this objection during the initial hearing. The court notes that respondent No.1-Board has three whole time members and others as specified in Section 189 of the IBC.
Sign in to view the parties.
The Chairperson of respondent No. 1 passed the…
The court ordered an interim suspension of…
The case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Chairperson of respondent No. 1, acting as a Disciplinary Committee under Section 220(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The petitioner contends that the Chairperson of respondent No. 1 cannot constitute the Disciplinary Committee because, according to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 220 of the IBC, the Disciplinary Committee should consist only of whole-time members of respondent No. 1. The petitioner argues that there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction for the Chairperson of respondent No. 1 to act as a Disciplinary Committee, warranting interference with the impugned order.
The Chairperson of respondent No. 1 passed an order on 10.05.2022, acting as a Disciplinary Committee under Section 220(2) of the IBC. The petitioner contends that this action is invalid because the Disciplinary Committee should only consist of whole-time members of respondent No. 1, as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 220 of the IBC. The petitioner argues that the Chairperson lacks the jurisdiction to act as a Disciplinary Committee. The respondent argues that the petitioner did not raise this objection during the initial hearing. The court notes that respondent No.1-Board has three whole time members and others as specified in Section 189 of the IBC.
The Chairperson of respondent No. 1 passed the…
The court ordered an interim suspension of…