Insolvency Board's power to suspend Authorization for Assignment under Clause 23A upheld as valid

Bombay HC upheld the validity of Clause 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Regulations, 2016, which permits suspension of Authorization for Assignment (AFA) upon initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The court held that issuance of show cause notices constitutes initiation of disciplinary proceedings, making suspension legal. Following Madras HC precedent in CA V. Venkata Sivakumar, the court found the regulations validly framed under statutory powers and rejected the petitioner's challenge to the suspension and show cause notices dated October 2023 and April 2024.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show cause notices dated 26th October 2023 and 10th April 2024.
2. Validity of Clause 23A of the 2016 Regulations and Clause 23A of the Bye-Laws of ICSI Institute of Insolvency Professionals.
3. Jurisdiction of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) in issuing the show cause notices.
4. Suspension of the Authorization for Assignment (AFA) pending adjudication of the show cause notices.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notices:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notices dated 26th October 2023 and 10th April 2024 issued by the IBBI on the grounds of jurisdictional infirmity, arguing that no order in writing was issued by the IBBI to undertake the investigation, and the requirements of Regulation 12 of the 2017 Regulations were not satisfied. The court noted that the show cause notices were preceded by investigation reports submitted pursuant to orders passed under Section 218 of the Code. The court found that office notings dated 26th September 2023 and similar notings for the second notice indicated that the Deputy General Manager, Mr. Mayank Mehta, was appointed as the Investigating Authority. Therefore, the court held that the show cause notices did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity and were validly issued.

2. Validity of Clause 23A of the 2016 Regulations and Bye-Laws:
The petitioner argued that Clause 23A of the 2016 Regulations and Clause 23A of the Bye-Laws were ultra vires the Code, as they allowed for the suspension of AFA pending disciplinary proceedings without statutory sanction. The court referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in CA V. Venkata Sivakumar, which upheld the validity of Clause 23A, stating that suspension is an ad-interim measure and not a penalty. The court agreed with this view, stating that Clause 23A did not travel beyond the powers conferred by the Code and was thus valid. The court also noted that the 2016 Regulations and 2017 Regulations were placed before each House of Parliament as required by Section 241 of the Code, thus giving them statutory force.

3. Jurisdiction of the IBBI:
The petitioner contended that the IBBI lacked jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices as there was no written order directing the investigation. The court found that the IBBI had complied with the statutory requirements by issuing orders in writing to appoint the Investigating Authority. Therefore, the court held that the IBBI had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices.

4. Suspension of the AFA:
The petitioner argued that the suspension of the AFA was without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. The court noted that Clause 23A of the 2016 Regulations provided for the suspension of the AFA on initiation of disciplinary proceedings, which includes the issuance of a show cause notice. The court held that suspension is an ad-interim measure and not a penalty, and thus does not attract the principles of natural justice. The court also noted that the suspension would not bar the petitioner from continuing with pending assignments but only from accepting new ones. Therefore, the court found that the suspension of the AFA was legal and valid.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that:
1. The show cause notices dated 26th October 2023 and 10th April 2024 were validly issued and did not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity.
2. Clause 23A of the 2016 Regulations and Clause 23A of the Bye-Laws of ICSI Institute of Insolvency Professionals were valid and not ultra vires the Code.
3. The IBBI had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices.
4. The suspension of the petitioner's AFA was legal and valid as per Clause 23A of the 2016 Regulations and the Bye-Laws.

The court discharged the rule with no order as to costs, clarifying that the observations made were only for the purposes of considering the validity of the show cause notices and not on the merits of the petitioner's defense.

---