TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eview of the common order dated 22.01.2024 made in W.P.Nos.16650 of 2020 and 14448 of 2021. 2.By the said order, the aforesaid Writ Petitions were dismissed by this Court. In W.P.No.16650 of 2020, the petitioner prayed for a Writ of Declaration that the provisions of Chapter III of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, more particularly, Section 204 (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) of the Act, as ultra vires, the provisions of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution, manifestly arbitrary, substantively unreasonable, excessive legislation and repugnant to the objectives of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 2.1. In W.P.No.14448 of 2021, the petitioner prayed for a Writ of Declaration that the impugned Regulation 23A of the Insolven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.K.Rathna Vs. ICAI [AIR 1987 SC 71] that by placing a person under suspension, his professional reputation will be impeded and will have far reaching consequence, the same is not considered in proper perspective by this Court. He would further submit that these are sick companies, which are now in the hands of the resolution/insolvency professionals and therefore, the reasoning made in paragraph No.6.2 that the purpose of suspension is to keep the erring person away from the office has no relevance at all. He would also submit that any hearing in the disciplinary enquiry would only amount to post facto hearing and as such this Court ought to have considered the argumen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring question No.3 by placing reliance on the said Judgment also lead to error. 6. Finally, pointing out to paragraph No.2 of the order, he would submit that the recording of the fact as if by an order dated 14.01.2020, the application was rejected by the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professional of ICAI (in short 'IIIPI') was erroneous. As a matter of fact, the order was communicated to him belatedly only on 16.07.2020 which would be clear even from the counter affidavit filed in C.A.No.1614 of 2023. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the petitioner and perused the material records of the case. 8. At the outset, the alleged error pointed out in paragraph No.12 is nothing but recording the case of the petitioner that....