<?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>2026 (10) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800076</link>
    <description>Fit and proper status for enrolment as an insolvency professional cannot be denied solely because disciplinary proceedings remain pending where the punishment removing the applicant from the professional register has been stayed in appeal. Under clause 4(1)(g) of the Insolvency Professionals Regulations, the applicant remained registered and permitted to perform professional duties while the punishment was in abeyance. The distinction between staying the punishment and continuing disciplinary proceedings did not support a finding of unfitness. The enrolment rejection was set aside, requiring fresh consideration without influence from the pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2026 07:40:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=927403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800076</link>
      <description>Fit and proper status for enrolment as an insolvency professional cannot be denied solely because disciplinary proceedings remain pending where the punishment removing the applicant from the professional register has been stayed in appeal. Under clause 4(1)(g) of the Insolvency Professionals Regulations, the applicant remained registered and permitted to perform professional duties while the punishment was in abeyance. The distinction between staying the punishment and continuing disciplinary proceedings did not support a finding of unfitness. The enrolment rejection was set aside, requiring fresh consideration without influence from the pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>