2024 (8) TMI 102 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Direction to respondents to pay compensation of Rupees one crore to the petitioner - seeking removal of the petitioner as Liquidator on account of his incomplete qualifications - petitioner had filed an application for the authorization for assignment and the same was rejected by the Insolvency Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 14.01.2020, as per Regulation 12 A of the IBBI Regulations - HELD THAT - The third respondent filed application before the Tribunal seeking removal of the petitioner as Liquidator on account of his incomplete qualifications. On hearing both sides, the petitioner was removed as Liquidator by an order dated 01.07.2022, as per Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with aid from Section 276 of the Companies Act, 2013. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the same was also dismissed, thereby confirmed the removal of the petitioner as Liquidator on the ground of not having valid authorization. Section 199 to 205 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 provides for insolvency professional agencies. As per Section 206 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a person can render his service as an insolvency professional only after being enrolled as a member of an insolvency professional agencies and registered with the first respondent as an insolvency professional under Section 207 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code subject to other conditions. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the respondents and the prayer sought for in the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order confirming the petitioner's guilt and imposing a fine.
2. Petitioner's qualifications as a Liquidator and the rejection of authorization for assignment.
3. Enquiries into the petitioner's qualifications and disciplinary action taken against him.
4. Removal of the petitioner as Liquidator by the Tribunal and dismissal of the appeal.
5. Legal provisions regarding insolvency professionals and enrollment requirements.
6. Previous writ petition related to authorization for assignment and regulatory control over professionals.
7. Legality of orders passed by the respondents and dismissal of the writ petitions seeking relief and compensation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order confirming his guilt and imposing a fine of Rs.10,000. The petitioner was appointed as Liquidator but did not possess valid Authorization for Assignment as required by law. The rejection of his application for authorization led to inquiries into his qualifications. The disciplinary committee found him guilty of professional misconduct and imposed a penalty, which was confirmed by the first respondent. The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking relief and compensation.

2. The Tribunal removed the petitioner as Liquidator due to incomplete qualifications, invoking relevant legal provisions. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed, confirming his removal. The petitioner's qualifications as a Liquidator were scrutinized, and it was found that he did not meet the necessary requirements for the role. The removal was based on the grounds of lacking valid authorization, as mandated by the law.

3. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code outlines requirements for insolvency professionals, including enrollment and registration with regulatory authorities. The petitioner's enrollment as a member of an insolvency professional agency and registration with the first respondent were essential for him to act as a Liquidator. Failure to meet these conditions resulted in his removal from the position.

4. A previous writ petition by the petitioner regarding authorization for assignment was disposed of, settling the issue raised. The regulatory control over professionals, including the cancellation of registration and membership, was clarified. The two-tiered regulatory structure was deemed valid, and the challenge on this basis was considered untenable.

5. The High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the respondents. Consequently, the writ petitions challenging the orders and seeking compensation were deemed devoid of merit and dismissed. The dismissal of both writ petitions led to the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions, with no order as to costs.