Challenge to Order on Monetary Penalty Stayed Pending Deposit

The writ petition challenged an order by respondent no.1/IRBI, specifically restrictions on Mr. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal until depositing a monetary penalty. The petitioner agreed to deposit the penalty with the Court. Respondent no.2/COC planned to challenge the circular underlying the order. A resolution was passed by respondent no.2/COC regarding pending bills of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, with modifications suggested by banks. Respondent no.2/COC was directed to deposit a specific amount, and the operation of the order restricting the petitioner was stayed. Counter-affidavit(s) were to be filed before the next hearing.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by respondent no.1/IRBI, Deposit of monetary penalty and evidence of deposit in CD's Account, Challenge to circular dated 12.6.2018, Resolution passed by respondent no.2/COC, Authorization for payment of fees to Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Modification of resolution, Deposit of specific amount by respondent no.2/COC, Stay on operation of impugned order, Filing of counter-affidavit(s).

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges the order passed by respondent no.1/IRBI, specifically the directions in paragraph 5.2.3 which restrict Mr. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal from accepting new assignments until depositing a monetary penalty and producing evidence of a substantial deposit in CD's Account. The petitioner agreed to deposit the penalty amount with the Court's Registry. Respondent no.2/COC, represented by advocates, expressed alignment with the petitioner on IRP costs but indicated plans to challenge the circular forming the basis of the impugned order.

The resolution passed by respondent no.2/COC on 10.10.2018 regarding the verification and approval of pending bills of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas was detailed. Modifications were suggested by representatives of Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India, leading to an amended resolution for payment authorization and reimbursement procedures. The resolution had significant creditor approval.

In light of the circumstances, respondent no.2/COC was directed to deposit a specific amount with the Court's Registry by a set deadline. The petitioner had already deposited the penalty amount. Consequently, the operation of the impugned order, restricting the petitioner from taking new assignments, was stayed due to respondent no.1/IRBI's refusal to comply despite the deposit made. Counter-affidavit(s) were to be filed by the respondents before the next hearing scheduled for 28.2.2020.

---