<?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 (11) TMI 133 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761147</link>
    <description>Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging suspension of an Insolvency Professional&#039;s registration for two years due to procedural irregularities in conducting e-auction as Liquidator. The court found no breach of natural justice as petitioner was given adequate opportunity to respond and oral hearing. The suspension was based on NCLT and NCLAT orders finding questionable conduct regarding short timeframe between auction notice and e-auction date. HC held the two-year suspension was proportionate and not excessive, noting petitioner could continue existing assignments subject to creditors&#039; discretion. The disciplinary committee&#039;s order was neither perverse nor irrational, warranting no interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2024 08:34:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 133 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761147</link>
      <description>Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging suspension of an Insolvency Professional&#039;s registration for two years due to procedural irregularities in conducting e-auction as Liquidator. The court found no breach of natural justice as petitioner was given adequate opportunity to respond and oral hearing. The suspension was based on NCLT and NCLAT orders finding questionable conduct regarding short timeframe between auction notice and e-auction date. HC held the two-year suspension was proportionate and not excessive, noting petitioner could continue existing assignments subject to creditors&#039; discretion. The disciplinary committee&#039;s order was neither perverse nor irrational, warranting no interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>