Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and insolvency professional duties: factual re-examination refused, challenge dismissed and suspension maintained.

Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is narrowly supervisory; courts will not reappraise factual findings or reweigh evidence, and interference is limited to decisions that are unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or perverse, resulting here in refusal to reopen fact findings and dismissal of the challenge. Insolvency professionals bear an affirmative duty to ensure compliance with the Insolvency Code, applicable regulations and the Code of Conduct; noncompliance with obligations concerning corporate debtor certifications justifies regulatory sanctions, and the impugned conclusion upholding suspension and related orders was maintained. Attempts to raise merits not litigated below were rejected as impermissible.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, interference was warranted with the disciplinary order suspending an insolvency professional's registration, in the absence of jurisdictional error, perversity, arbitrariness, or violation of law.

(ii) Whether the earlier concluded show-cause proceedings barred issuance of a subsequent show-cause notice on the principle of res judicata, when the later notice proceeded on a different foundation/cause of action.

(iii) Whether factual submissions on merits, not urged before the writ court, could be entertained for the first time in an intra-court appeal against dismissal of the writ petition (and after rejection of review), particularly where the appeal did not assail the writ court's determination on res judicata.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Scope of interference under Article 226 with disciplinary findings of an administrative authority

Legal framework: The Court treated Article 226 jurisdiction as supervisory and not appellate. It reiterated that the writ court does not reweigh evidence or reopen factual findings, and interference lies only where the administrative decision suffers from jurisdictional error, patent error of law apparent on the face of record, unreasonableness, irrationality, arbitrariness, or perversity.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the writ court's role was confined to examining the decision-making process rather than reassessing the correctness of factual conclusions. Since the writ court had found the disciplinary order to be passed after due consideration of relevant material and found no jurisdictional error or perversity, the appellate court found no basis to disturb that conclusion. The Court further observed that, given these constraints, the writ court "could not have" undertaken a fact-finding exercise to reappreciate the disciplinary authority's conclusions.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted because the impugned disciplinary order, as upheld by the writ court, was not shown to be vitiated by jurisdictional error, perversity, arbitrariness, or a legally impermissible decision-making process.

Issue (ii): Res judicata effect of earlier show-cause proceedings on a subsequent show-cause notice

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court affirmed the writ court's determination that the subsequent show-cause notice was founded on a different issue and not on the same cause of action as the earlier notice. On that basis, the principle of res judicata was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The earlier concluded show-cause proceedings did not bar the later show-cause notice; res judicata did not apply because the later notice was not issued on the same cause of action.

Issue (iii): Maintainability of new factual/merits submissions raised for the first time in appeal

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded that the appellant had not argued factual merits before the writ court and sought to introduce them for the first time in appeal, which the Court held to be impermissible. It also noted that the review had been rejected because the grounds were either already considered or were never raised at the writ stage. Additionally, the Court held it significant that the appeal did not challenge the writ court's finding on res judicata (the only ground addressed in the writ), and instead attempted to pivot to factual merits that were not previously urged.

Conclusion: New factual arguments on merits, not raised before the writ court, were not entertainable in appeal; coupled with the unchallenged res judicata determination and the limited writ standard of review, the appeal failed and was dismissed.

---