AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be appointed as Resolution Professional - "RP" in proceedings that had been filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - "Code of 2016" by Vijisan Exports Pvt. Ltd. - "VEPL" seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - "CIRP" of Ciemme Jewels Ltd. - "CJL". The National Company Law Tribunal - NCLT on 25th March 2019 passed an order for liquidation of CJL and therefore appointed the petitioner as Liquidator in the said matter. An another application under Section 9 of the Code of 2016 was filed by M/s. Central Investigation and Security Services Ltd. seeking initiation of CIRP of M/s. Dhanlaxmi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. - "DEPL". The NCLT by the order dated 6th September 2021 appointed the petitioner as Interim Resolution Professional - "IRP". 4. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India - "IBBI" in exercise of powers under Section 218 of the Code of 2016 appointed an Investigating Authority to conduct an investigation into the liquidation proceedings of CJL as well as an investigation in the CIRP proceedings of DEPL. A notice of investigation was sent to the petitioner on 22nd June 2022 and 22nd July 2022. The petitioner replied to the same o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....86, (iii) DKT India Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Civil Writ Petition No. 2419 of 2023, decided on 3rd April 2023, (iv) Savan Godiawala Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 13317/2022 & CM APPLs. 40416/2022, 22945/2023, decided on 11th January 2024), and (v) Amit Gupta Vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and Anr. (OOCJ Writ Petition (Lodging) No.34701 of 2023, decided on 4th April 2024). It was also urged that the DC comprised of only one Whole-Time member and not two Whole-Time members as required by the Code. The action of suspending the petitioner's registration in these facts would amount to double jeopardy since the petitioner had borne the expenses for the auction as directed. It was thus submitted that taking an overall view of the matter, the penalty of suspension as imposed was liable to be set aside. In any event, the said penalty was excessive in nature without indicating the requirement of suspending the petitioner for a period of two years. It was thus prayed that the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition be granted. 6. Mr. Pankaj Vijayan, learned counsel for the IBBI opposed the writ petition and supported the order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4). It was thus urged that there was no case made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the documentary material on record. At the outset, it may be noted that there is no serious grievance raised in the challenge to the order passed by the DC on the premise that the principles of natural justice had been breached. After the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he was granted due opportunity to reply and after granting him an opportunity of oral hearing which the petitioner availed, the impugned order came to be passed. The investigation reports that were called by the IBBI have been referred to in paragraph 2 of the show cause notice and the said reports were annexed as Annexures "A" and "B" thereto. Once it is found that the impugned action has been taken after duly complying with the principles of natural justice, the limited scope available for examining the impugned order would be on the touchstone of perversity and irrationality. We may also note that insofar as the conduct of the petitioner as Liquidator is concerned, the show cause notice proceeds on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he e-auction was scheduled on 8th April 2022, the Liquidator had wrongly mentioned the last date for submission of EOI and EMD as 15th April 2022 and 16th April 2022 respectively. The Corrigendum issued by the petitioner was after completion of the e-auction and hence it was observed that the same did not serve any purpose. Accordingly, the NCLT set aside the e-auction dated 8th April 2022 conducted by the petitioner as Liquidator and directed him to conduct a fresh auction by maintaining thirty days time between the paper publication and the e-auction to enable more bidders to participate in the auction. The petitioner was directed to bear all expenses incurred for the auction. 10. The petitioner filed an appeal before the NCLAT challenging the said order. While dismissing the said appeal, the NCLAT observed that the correct procedure for conducting e-auction had not been followed. The conflicting dates mentioned in the notice were sufficient to cause confusion and therefore could not be treated as mere typographical errors as claimed by the petitioner. It further held that it was not in a position to appreciate any grounds for such hurry on the part of the Liquidator. The entire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect or that a perverse view of the matter had been taken. The other inconsistency noted was the discrepancy in the date of submission of the claim which had been shown as 13th October 2021 and that date was thereafter indicated as 5th December 2021 in column 11 of Form "A". The DC noted that no specific reply was given by the petitioner to these discrepancies in the public announcement as regards the last date for submission of claims. It was thus concluded by the DC that the petitioner had shown carelessness and negligence in that regard. We again do not find any reason to take a different view from the conclusion recorded by the DC. In absence of any specific reply or explanation by the petitioner for such discrepancy, the finding recorded by the DC would have to be accepted. It is thus found that in the matter of DEPL, the contraventions at the behest of the petitioner is a reason for taking action against the petitioner. It cannot be said that such action as taken by the DC was on any unfounded basis. The action with regard to CJL was in view of the orders passed by the NCLT and thereafter the NCLAT. The action taken in the matter of DEPL was on the basis of admitted materi....