9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 567 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyConstitutional validity - Disciplinary proceedings against insolvency professional agencies - suspension of authorization for assignment - Seeking review of the common order - Error apparent on the face of record or not - sufficient cause for review or 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 arguments are nothing but pointing out that the conclusions reached by this Court are erroneous. The petitioner is virtually assailing correctness of the findings before the self same Court and pleading for re-consideration of the issue, which is nothing but an appeal in disguise, which cannot be entertained by this Court. No grounds on any materials which were not there for consideration is pleaded. The conclusions are not on the basis of any error apparent on the face of the record. No other sufficient cause which would be within the contours of review as contemplated under Order XXVII Rule 1 of CPC is made out. There are no merits in the review application - application dismissed.
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to the provisions of Chapter III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the impugned Regulation 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016. Challenge to Chapter III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: The petitioner in W.P.No.16650 of 2020 sought a Writ of Declaration against the provisions of Chapter III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, specifically Section 204, as being ultra vires to the Constitution and repugnant to the objectives of the Code. The petitioner contended that these provisions were manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of fundamental rights. However, the Court dismissed the Writ Petitions after framing three questions, including the validity of Regulation 23 A and Section 204 of the IBC. The Court answered all questions against the petitioner, concluding that the Writ Petitions were not maintainable in law. Challenge to Regulation 23A of IBBI Regulations: In W.P.No.14448 of 2021, the petitioner challenged Regulation 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Regulations as ultra vires to the Constitution. The petitioner sought compensation for financial loss and mental agony. The Court considered the petitioner's contentions but ultimately dismissed the Writ Petitions after framing and answering specific questions related to the validity of the regulation and Section 204 of the IBC. Review Application Dismissal: The Review Application was filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of the Court. The petitioner raised various contentions, including errors in the Court's reasoning and reliance on previous judgments. However, the Court found no merit in the Review Application, stating that the petitioner was essentially seeking reconsideration of the Court's findings, which amounted to an appeal in disguise. The Court concluded that there were no grounds for review as per the applicable rules and dismissed the application without costs. Conclusion: The High Court of Madras dismissed the Review Application challenging the order that had previously dismissed the Writ Petitions challenging the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 23A of the IBBI Regulations. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and concluded that the grounds raised did not meet the criteria for review as per the relevant rules.
|
