2018 (3) TMI 574 - HC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Court dismisses premature writ petition due to pending discharge application. Petitioner not fit as Insolvency Professional.

The court found the writ petition premature as the petitioner's discharge application was pending before the Trial Court. The rejection of the application ... Corporate insolvency process - Registration as an Insolvency Profession (I.P.) has been rejected - Held that:- What is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an FIR bearing No.RC/219/2012, dated 3.7.2012, has been registered against the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the registration of the FIR has been followed by the prosecution filing a chargesheet in the matter, on 17.02.2014. Writ petition at this juncture is in a sense pre-mature. The petitioner, therefore, is given liberty to approach this Court, once the discharge application is disposed of by the concerned Trial Court. Given the fact that the discharge application was filed as far back as on 13.01.2016, the concerned Trial Court is requested to take up the application for adjudication and dispose of the same at the earliest. Issues: Rejection of application for registration as an Insolvency Professional based on being not a fit and proper person under Regulation 4(g)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016. Premature nature of the writ petition due to pending discharge application before the Trial Court.In this case, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the order of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India rejecting the application seeking registration as an Insolvency Professional. The rejection was based on the petitioner not being considered a fit and proper person under Regulation 4(g)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016. It was noted that an FIR had been registered against the petitioner, followed by a chargesheet in the matter. The petitioner claimed innocence and mentioned having filed an application for discharge before the Trial Court, which was pending since 2016.The counsel for the respondent argued that due to the petitioner's antecedents, he was not a fit and proper person, supporting the decision in the impugned order. However, it was acknowledged that if the discharge application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Trial Court, the matter would be viewed differently. The Court deemed the writ petition premature at that stage and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Court once the discharge application was disposed of by the Trial Court, emphasizing the need for the Trial Court to expedite the adjudication of the application.Furthermore, the respondent's counsel indicated that if the Trial Court granted the discharge application, a fresh application could be considered, despite the impugned order. The Court agreed with this stance, highlighting that the respondent should not face difficulty in reevaluating the case based on new circumstances arising from the Trial Court's decision. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, along with all pending applications in the matter.