https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784813 Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is narrowly supervisory; courts will not reappraise factual findings or reweigh evidence, and interference is limited to decisions that are unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or perverse, resulting here in refusal to reopen fact findings and dismissal of the challenge. Insolvency professionals bear an affirmative duty to ensure compliance with the Insolvency Code, applicable regulations and the Code of Conduct; noncompliance with obligations concerning corporate debtor certifications justifies regulatory sanctions, and the impugned conclusion upholding suspension and related orders was maintained. Attempts to raise merits not litigated below were rejected as impermissible. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:29:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784813 Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is narrowly supervisory; courts will not reappraise factual findings or reweigh evidence, and interference is limited to decisions that are unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary or perverse, resulting here in refusal to reopen fact findings and dismissal of the challenge. Insolvency professionals bear an affirmative duty to ensure compliance with the Insolvency Code, applicable regulations and the Code of Conduct; noncompliance with obligations concerning corporate debtor certifications justifies regulatory sanctions, and the impugned conclusion upholding suspension and related orders was maintained. Attempts to raise merits not litigated below were rejected as impermissible. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784813