<?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 (8) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756398</link>
    <description>Acting as a liquidator or insolvency professional requires compliance with the statutory scheme under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including valid enrolment, registration and the prescribed authorization for assignment on the relevant date. On the facts, the records showed that the required authorization for assignment was not in force when the petitioner was appointed liquidator, and the earlier rejection of his request supported the finding that he was not duly qualified. The disciplinary authorities therefore had a basis to conclude that he acted in breach of the regulatory requirements, and the disciplinary order and penalty were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Aug 2024 08:11:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 102 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756398</link>
      <description>Acting as a liquidator or insolvency professional requires compliance with the statutory scheme under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including valid enrolment, registration and the prescribed authorization for assignment on the relevant date. On the facts, the records showed that the required authorization for assignment was not in force when the petitioner was appointed liquidator, and the earlier rejection of his request supported the finding that he was not duly qualified. The disciplinary authorities therefore had a basis to conclude that he acted in breach of the regulatory requirements, and the disciplinary order and penalty were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>