The case involves a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, claims that Section 66(1) is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing it is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take steps to declare Section 66(1) as such. The petitioner also contends that fraudulent activities are being perpetrated by corporate entities to defraud creditors and siphon off public money, and that the IBC itself is in the public interest.
The petitioner, a practicing advocate and resident of Tripura, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioner argued that Section 66(1) is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, claiming it is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take steps to declare Section 66(1) as such. The petitioner contended that corporate entities are engaging in fraudulent activities to defraud creditors and siphon off public money. The petitioner relied on several judgments, including Usha Ananthasubramanian vs. Union of India, South India Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd vs. Sree Rama Vilasam Press
…Sign in to view the parties.
The date on which the…
The date on which the…
The case involves a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, claims that Section 66(1) is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing it is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take steps to declare Section 66(1) as such. The petitioner also contends that fraudulent activities are being perpetrated by corporate entities to defraud creditors and siphon off public money, and that the IBC itself is in the public interest.
The petitioner, a practicing advocate and resident of Tripura, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The petitioner argued that Section 66(1) is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, claiming it is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take steps to declare Section 66(1) as such. The petitioner contended that corporate entities are engaging in fraudulent activities to defraud creditors and siphon off public money. The petitioner relied on several judgments, including Usha Ananthasubramanian vs. Union of India, South India Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd vs. Sree Rama Vilasam Press
…The date on which the…
The date on which the…