TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....026 passed by Respondent No. 1, along with the consequential Show Cause Notice No. COMP-1011/95/2025-IBBI/1811-1335 dated 10.09.2025, as being arbitrary, perverse, ultra vires the IBC and Regulations, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and vitiated by non-application of mind, violation of natural justice, and disproportionate penalty; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the Respondent No. 1 to forthwith restore the Petitioner's registration as Insolvency Professional (Reg. No. IBBI/IPA-01/IP-P00049/2017-2018/10123) with immediate effect, withdraw all notifications/enforcements of suspension, and grant all consequential benefits including continuity in ongo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience." 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and a registered Insolvency Professional with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India ('IBBI') since 2017. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') of Gemus Engineering Limited was admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT'), Kolkata Bench, on 30.04.2024. One Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta was initially appointed as Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP'). On 18.07.2024, the petitioner was appointed as the Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors ('CoC') and managed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elhi. The impugned order has been passed in Delhi and the petitioner does not have any relation with the NCLT proceedings, which according to him are independent and are distinct from the one which are sought to be carried out against the petitioner. He also submits that since the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, the petitioner has a right to approach this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254, has held that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital v. Uttarakhand University of Ayurveda and Ors. 2024:DHC:6903-DB, Michael Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Medical Commission and Ors. 2024:DHC:7146, which declare that the situs of the head office/registered office of the respondent, does not determine whether the Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition. 8. The Court in The Indure Pvt. Ltd. importantly noted, at para. 36: "36. A petitioner who approaches this Court to assail a decision of an authority situated in Delhi, when the underlying cause for the said decision lies elsewhere, effectively attempts to make this High Court a mini-pan-India Superior Court exercising jurisdiction over all events which take place throughou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eference to "dominant facts", and facts which are "material, essential and integral" to the lis in question. In most cases, the fact that the order is passed, or the head office is located, or that opportunity of hearing was afforded, within the jurisdiction of this Court is completely immaterial, non-essential, and non-integral to the dispute in question. Any of the aforenoted three aspects could very well have taken place in another part of the Country, it is for the sole reason that Delhi is the national capital, that, in most cases these factors get connected to the jurisdiction of this Court. From another lens, it may be seen that regardless of what the underlying facts or legal injury/infringement may be, the order impugned would, in ....