Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (10) TMI 640 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy


Issues:
1. Rejection of application for Certificate of Registration as an Insolvency Professional based on lack of managerial experience.
2. Interpretation of the term 'management' under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India Regulations, 2016.
3. Examination of eligibility criteria for registration as an Insolvency Professional under Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 2016.
4. Judicial review of the impugned order dated 18.11.2021 and remand of the matter for fresh consideration.

Issue 1: Rejection of Application for Certificate of Registration as an Insolvency Professional based on Lack of Managerial Experience

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their application for a Certificate of Registration as an Insolvency Professional by respondent No.2. The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioner, being self-employed and running a Consultancy and Valuation business, lacked managerial experience as a salaried employee. The petitioner contended that being self-employed does not preclude one from having managerial experience and cited the absence of a specific definition of 'management' in the Regulations, 2016. The court noted the petitioner's argument that managing one's own business entails managerial skills and directed a fresh consideration of the application to assess the petitioner's eligibility based on the relevant criteria.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the Term 'Management' under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India Regulations, 2016

The court analyzed the impugned order's findings, emphasizing the requirement for an Insolvency Professional (IP) to possess managerial experience to effectively manage distressed corporate debtors. The court observed that the petitioner's consultancy and valuation services did not align with the traditional salaried managerial experience. However, the court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that consultancy also involves managerial aspects and referred to a similar business engaged in 'Building and Construction' to support the petitioner's case. The court highlighted the need for a broader interpretation of 'management' beyond traditional employment scenarios to include self-employed individuals demonstrating managerial expertise.

Issue 3: Examination of Eligibility Criteria for Registration as an Insolvency Professional under Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 2016

The court delved into Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 2016, outlining the eligibility criteria for registration as an Insolvency Professional. The regulation stipulates various pathways for professionals to qualify, including specific experience requirements in law or management fields. Considering the petitioner's completion of required courses and the Insolvency Professional Examination, the court emphasized the need for a holistic assessment of the petitioner's managerial experience and educational qualifications as per the regulations. The court directed the respondent to reevaluate the application based on the petitioner's submission of additional documents demonstrating eligibility.

Issue 4: Judicial Review of the Impugned Order and Remand for Fresh Consideration

After a thorough examination of the submissions and regulations, the court quashed the impugned order dated 18.11.2021 and remanded the matter back to the respondent for a fresh decision. The court granted the petitioner the opportunity to submit additional documents within a specified timeframe to substantiate their managerial experience and educational qualifications. The respondent was directed to issue a reasoned order within six weeks from receiving the court's directive, emphasizing that the court did not assess the merits of the case. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates