Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2024 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1284 - MADRAS HIGH COURTConstitutional Validity of Chapter III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, more particularly, Section 204 (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of the Act - ultra vires the provisions of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution or not - Whether Regulation 23 A is liable to be struck down as manifestly arbitrary, conferring unbridled, excessive power on IPAs and for violation of principles of natural justice? - Whether Section 204 of IBC is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, in as much as it provides for disciplinary proceedings by two agencies, is manifestly arbitrary and prevents access to justice and is illegal for confirming unbridled and excessive powers to the agencies? - Challenge to Regulation 23A - principles of constructive res judicata. Whether Regulation 23 A is liable to be struck down asmanifestly arbitrary, conferring unbridled, excessive power on IPAs and for violation of principles of natural justice? - HELD THAT:- There is no discretion vested with the IPAs and the suspension is automatic, once the disciplinary proceedings are initiated. Therefore, it can neither be termed as manifestly arbitrary nor be challenged on the ground of any confirmation of unguided/unbridled power - The power of suspension is not a punishment and is an adinterim measure and if one has to be issued with show cause notice, then the very purpose of ad-interim suspension is lost. In as much as ultimate punishment is imposed only on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings it cannot be said that any substantial or vested right of the Resolution Professional is violated. Of course, any suspension, if prolonged, without any inquiry being proceeded with, would cause stigma. But the larger public interest and the laudable purpose behind the rule of suspension and the relative hardship had to be balanced. Only to avoid hardships, normally swift and prompt completion of the process of disciplinary proceedings is insisted upon. Therefore, the petitioner or any other aggrieved professional can only insist upon prompt completion of the proceedings and the hardship cannot be a ground for challenging the very regulation itself. The constitutional validity of the Regulation 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016 upheld. Whether Section 204 of IBC is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, in as much as it provides for disciplinary proceedings by two agencies, is manifestly arbitrary and prevents access to justice and is illegal for confirming unbridled and excessive powers to the agencies? - HELD THAT:- It is a result of due consideration of an expert report and cannot be termed arbitrary, much less manifestly arbitrary. When a new legislation such as the IBC carrying out major reforms in the field is brought up, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited [2019 (8) TMI 532 - SUPREME COURT], the legislature must be given a free play in the joints and there must be room for experimentation and correction also. Therefore, when with the proper application of mind, provision has been incorporated in the IBC for subjecting the Resolution Professionals to be under monitoring and control of two tier system, the same by itself cannot be termed as arbitrary. Even if there is a likelihood of hardship to an individual Resolution Professional, the provision itself cannot be held to be blocking free access to justice. Moreover mere conferment of authority on IBBI and IPAs for supervision control and disciplinary proceedings by itself cannot be held to be conferring of unbridled power. The Regulations and Bye-laws which are framed under Section 204 of the IBC clearly provide checks and balances. The procedure for taking disciplinary action and the appellate remedies are provided. Therefore, it cannot be said to be confirmation of excessive or unbridled power. Section 204 of IBC is only an enabling provision and therefore, we see no constitutional infirmity in any of the provisions under Section 204 (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of IBC. Challenge to Regulation 23A - principles of constructive res judicata - HELD THAT:- When it comes to the constitutional validity of the self same regulations, the petitioner cannot pick and choose the particular regulation, one after the other on the same grounds or different grounds and repeatedly file Writ Petitions. If aggrieved, the petitioner ought to have challenged the vires of the Regulation 23 A also when he filed the earlier W.P.No.13229 of 2020, challenging the other provisions of the self same regulations and filing of the repeated Writ Petitions would be barred by the principles of constructive res judicata. More specifically, the issue of twin control has been specifically decided by this Court qua the same parties. The entire provisions of IBC were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT]. The petition is barred by the principles of res judicata and the same is also without any merits as it is declared the Regulation 23 A to be intra vires and without any merit and another unsuccessful successive challenge to the Constitutional vires of IBC. The Writ Petitions are dismissed.
|