The Writ Petition No.1365 of 2023 was filed impugning an order passed by the Disciplinary Committee appointed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) dated June 24, 2022. The petitioner's main grievance was that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and showed a complete non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Committee. The petitioner also argued that the punishment awarded was excessive and not commensurate with the alleged violations.
Partha Sarathy Sarkar filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) dated June 24, 2022. The petitioner argued that the order violated natural justice principles and demonstrated a lack of due diligence by the Disciplinary Committee. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the punishment was excessive and disproportionate to the alleged violations. The petitioner claimed he couldn't appoint registered valuers because the Corporate Debtor's assets were untraceable, and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) refused to cover CIRP costs. He argued that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) doesn't require the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)/Resolution Professional (RP) to personally
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Disciplinary Committee appointed by the…
The High Court heard the Writ Petition and…
The Writ Petition No.1365 of 2023 was filed impugning an order passed by the Disciplinary Committee appointed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) dated June 24, 2022. The petitioner's main grievance was that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and showed a complete non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Committee. The petitioner also argued that the punishment awarded was excessive and not commensurate with the alleged violations.
Partha Sarathy Sarkar filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) dated June 24, 2022. The petitioner argued that the order violated natural justice principles and demonstrated a lack of due diligence by the Disciplinary Committee. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the punishment was excessive and disproportionate to the alleged violations. The petitioner claimed he couldn't appoint registered valuers because the Corporate Debtor's assets were untraceable, and the Committee of Creditors (CoC) refused to cover CIRP costs. He argued that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) doesn't require the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)/Resolution Professional (RP) to personally
…The Disciplinary Committee appointed by the…
The High Court heard the Writ Petition and…