https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314118 The Madras HC upheld Regulation 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Model Bye-Laws, holding that automatic suspension of authorization for assignment on initiation of disciplinary proceedings is an ad-interim, non-punitive measure and does not require prior hearing or confer unguided discretion. It also upheld Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, finding that the two-tier regulatory framework for insolvency professionals is a deliberate legislative design with safeguards, and that parallel regulatory powers do not amount to double jeopardy absent actual multiple punishment for the same charge. The writ petitions were held barred to the extent of constructive res judicata and otherwise without merit. en-us Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 May 2024 06:48:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314118 The Madras HC upheld Regulation 23A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Model Bye-Laws, holding that automatic suspension of authorization for assignment on initiation of disciplinary proceedings is an ad-interim, non-punitive measure and does not require prior hearing or confer unguided discretion. It also upheld Section 204 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, finding that the two-tier regulatory framework for insolvency professionals is a deliberate legislative design with safeguards, and that parallel regulatory powers do not amount to double jeopardy absent actual multiple punishment for the same charge. The writ petitions were held barred to the extent of constructive res judicata and otherwise without merit. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Mon, 22 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314118