TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r not - Regulation 23 A is liable to be struck down or not - violation of principles of natural justice - Section 204 of IBC is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India or not - HELD THAT:- The alleged error pointed out is nothing but recording the case of the petitioner that by an order dated 14.01.2020 the application was rejected. Assuming that the petitioner is correct in stating that as per the counter affidavit the same was communicated on 16.07.2020, even then, the same has no bearing whatsoever to the ultimate findings and conclusions arrived at. Even though the petitioner would term the grounds raised in the review application as error apparent on the face of the record , it could be seen that all his pleadings and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the objectives of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2.1. In W.P.No.14448 of 2021, the petitioner prayed for a Writ of Declaration that the impugned Regulation 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016, which was subsequently amended by the 2nd respondent vide Notification No.IBBI/2016-17/GN/REG0001 dated 23.07.2019 as ultra vires the Constitution and consequentially direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to pay the compensation for the financial loss and mental agony suffered by the petitioner 3. After considering the case of the petitioner, this Court framed the following three questions in paragraph No.5.1 of the common order dated 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce at all. He would also submit that any hearing in the disciplinary enquiry would only amount to post facto hearing and as such this Court ought to have considered the arguments relating to principles of natural justice in a proper perspective. Therefore, the answer in respect of the first question is erroneous in law. 5. Moving on to the second question, while this Court relied upon the BLRC report and the twin tire architecture, his submission whether the same would be relevant to the instant profession and that whether it would be any benefit to the resolution/insolvency professionals who are already renowned Chartered Accountants was not considered by this Court. Similarly, the earlier Judgment, in the case filed by the petitioner, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner and perused the material records of the case. 8. At the outset, the alleged error pointed out in paragraph No.12 is nothing but recording the case of the petitioner that by an order dated 14.01.2020 the application was rejected. Assuming that the petitioner is correct in stating that as per the counter affidavit the same was communicated on 16.07.2020, even then, the same has no bearing whatsoever to the ultimate findings and conclusions arrived at. 9. Secondly, we have already extracted the submissions made by the petitioner in person, so as to review the order of this Court. Even though the petitioner would term the grounds raised in the review application as error apparent on the face of the record , it could be seen that all his ple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
