Administrative fraud classification suspension does not halt independent criminal investigation or warrant-based searches into alleged economic offenc...
Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Insolvency and BankruptcyMarch 13, 2024Case LawsHC
Constitutional validity - Disciplinary proceedings against insolvency professional agencies - suspension of authorization for assignment - Regulation 23A is liable to be struck down or not - violation of principles of natural justice - Section 204 of IBC is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India or not - The court dismissed the petitioner's contentions regarding the arbitrary nature of Regulation 23A, its conferral of excessive power on IPAs, and its violation of natural justice principles. - The court upheld the validity of Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, rejecting the petitioner's argument. The petitioner is virtually assailing correctness of the findings before the self same Court and pleading for re-consideration of the issue, which is nothing but an appeal in disguise, which cannot be entertained by this Court.
Constitutional validity - Disciplinary proceedings against insolvency professional agencies - suspension of authorization for assignment - Regulation 23A is liable to be struck down or not - violation of principles of natural justice - Section 204 of IBC is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India or not - The court dismissed the petitioner's contentions regarding the arbitrary nature of Regulation 23A, its conferral of excessive power on IPAs, and its violation of natural justice principles. - The court upheld the validity of Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, rejecting the petitioner's argument. The petitioner is virtually assailing correctness of the findings before the self same Court and pleading for re-consideration of the issue, which is nothing but an appeal in disguise, which cannot be entertained by this Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
