<?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 (10) TMI 834 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760235</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the one-year suspension of a Resolution Professional&#039;s registration by IBBI. The suspension was based on contraventions of IBC provisions including lack of due diligence in verifying resolution plans, failure to object to improper SRA proposals regarding arbitration awards, and non-compliance with regulatory requirements for claim admissions. The court found sufficient basis for IBBI&#039;s show cause notice and upheld the Disciplinary Committee&#039;s findings based on NCLAT observations. Despite the Committee&#039;s failure to specify reasons for the suspension period, the court held the one-year suspension was not disproportionate and declined to interfere under writ jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:14:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=773977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 834 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760235</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the one-year suspension of a Resolution Professional&#039;s registration by IBBI. The suspension was based on contraventions of IBC provisions including lack of due diligence in verifying resolution plans, failure to object to improper SRA proposals regarding arbitration awards, and non-compliance with regulatory requirements for claim admissions. The court found sufficient basis for IBBI&#039;s show cause notice and upheld the Disciplinary Committee&#039;s findings based on NCLAT observations. Despite the Committee&#039;s failure to specify reasons for the suspension period, the court held the one-year suspension was not disproportionate and declined to interfere under writ jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>