The High Court dismissed two Writ Petitions challenging provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 23A of IBBI Regulations.
A Division Bench of Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing the review applications and observed that these contentions were insufficient for review, as they did not establish errors apparent on the face of the record.
The High Court framed three questions and answered them against the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. Dissatisfied, a Review Application was filed, arguing errors in the Court's order. The subsequent Review Application alleged errors, emphasizing the unjustified suspension of professionals. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the reliance on certain legal precedents. The High Court had not considered relevant judgments. The Court, however, deemed these contentions insufficient for review, as they did not establish errors apparent on the face of the record.
In the High Court order dated 22.01.2024, two Writ Petitions (16650 of 2020 and 14448 of 2021) were dismissed. The first petition challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, while the second questioned the validity of Regulation 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Model Bye-Laws and Governing Board of Insolvency Professional Agencies) Regulations, 2016.
The High Court, after considering the petitioner's arguments, found no merit in the Review Application. It concluded that the alleged errors were not substantial and amounted to an appeal in disguise. Therefore, the Review Application was dismissed, and no costs were imposed.
Commentaires