<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (1) TMI 93 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447694</link>
    <description>The Madras HC considered whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India could issue a show-cause notice and start disciplinary action against a liquidator for sharing valuation information during liquidation. It held that the conduct fell within the disciplinary framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and related regulations, and that proceedings connected with section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not oust the Board&#039;s statutory jurisdiction. An earlier complaint outcome before the insolvency professionals institute did not bar the Board from acting, though it could be relevant material in the inquiry. The automatic suspension of the Authorization for Assignment was also upheld because it followed valid initiation of proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 18:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 93 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447694</link>
      <description>The Madras HC considered whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India could issue a show-cause notice and start disciplinary action against a liquidator for sharing valuation information during liquidation. It held that the conduct fell within the disciplinary framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and related regulations, and that proceedings connected with section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not oust the Board&#039;s statutory jurisdiction. An earlier complaint outcome before the insolvency professionals institute did not bar the Board from acting, though it could be relevant material in the inquiry. The automatic suspension of the Authorization for Assignment was also upheld because it followed valid initiation of proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>