https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396180 The Disciplinary Committee found that the Insolvency Professional did not contravene Regulation 27 of the CIRP Regulations regarding the appointment of valuers within the prescribed timeline. However, the IP was found to have contravened certain provisions by seeking Committee of Creditors' approval for appointing a forensic auditor. Despite these findings, the IP was not prohibited from practicing due to the absence of malicious intent and the successful resolution of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process within the specified timelines. The IP was cautioned to exercise extreme care and diligence in complying with the law in the future. en-us Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396180 The Disciplinary Committee found that the Insolvency Professional did not contravene Regulation 27 of the CIRP Regulations regarding the appointment of valuers within the prescribed timeline. However, the IP was found to have contravened certain provisions by seeking Committee of Creditors' approval for appointing a forensic auditor. Despite these findings, the IP was not prohibited from practicing due to the absence of malicious intent and the successful resolution of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process within the specified timelines. The IP was cautioned to exercise extreme care and diligence in complying with the law in the future. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fri, 13 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396180