https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396079 The court found that the Insolvency Professional (IP) violated regulations by including personal guarantor property valuation costs in the Insolvency Resolution Process Costs (IRPC) and by not getting the auditor's fees approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in a meeting. Despite the Bank of India's involvement and approval, the IP's lack of independence and procedural lapses were noted. Given the early stage of the insolvency regime, a lenient view was taken, and the IP was warned to adhere strictly to the law in the future. The case was disposed of with these directions. en-us Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396079 The court found that the Insolvency Professional (IP) violated regulations by including personal guarantor property valuation costs in the Insolvency Resolution Process Costs (IRPC) and by not getting the auditor's fees approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in a meeting. Despite the Bank of India's involvement and approval, the IP's lack of independence and procedural lapses were noted. Given the early stage of the insolvency regime, a lenient view was taken, and the IP was warned to adhere strictly to the law in the future. The case was disposed of with these directions. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396079