NCLAT: In Absence of Contractual Clause Interest for Delayed Payments Can’t Form Part of OD  ||  NCLAT: Can Correct Inadvertent Typographical Errors in Orders Passed by NCLT under NCLT Rules  ||  NCLAT: To Satisfy Requirement of S.8 Service of Demand Notice on Registered E-Mail of CD Sufficient  ||  Delhi HC Closes Suit by Hamdard Against Baba Ramdev’s ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Remark  ||  Delhi HC: Can Consider Documents Filed with Plaint to Determine ‘Cause of Action’  ||  Sikkim HC: Section 29A as Amended in 2019 is Applicable on All Arb. Proceedings Pending at the Time  ||  AP HC: Preliminary Enquiry Report Loses Its Significance, Once Regular Enquiry is Initiated  ||  SC: Can’t Take Cognizance of Offence Under S.186 IPC on Police Report/Chargesheet  ||  SC: Can Admit Unregistered Agree. to Sell as Evidence to Prove Contract in Specific Performance Suit  ||  SC Directs Reservation of Post of Treasure for Women Lawyers in Gujarat High Court    

Abba Consultants Private Limited vs. Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board - (High Court of Delhi) (03 Nov 2023)

Courts do not sit as an Appellate Authority over the decisions taken by the experts

MANU/DE/7417/2023

Insolvency

The Petitioner has approached present Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 herein ('the Board') to take action against Respondent No.3 (now Respondent No.2) for misconduct in his performance as an Insolvency Resolution Professional in the matter of Sandhya Prakash Limited (Corporate Debtor). The Petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate writ/order/direction restraining Respondent No.3 (now Respondent No.2) from functioning as a Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor during the pendency of this Writ Petition.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by experts until and unless there is gross miscarriage of justice which strikes at the root of the case. A team of experts have considered the case and have arrived at a conclusion and this Court cannot hazard a venture into this domain. It is well settled that the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable.

Respondent No.1/Board is the authority to regulate the functioning of the Insolvency Professionals and the Board comprises of experts in the field who have been appointed by the Central Government to carry out the functions specified under Part IV of the IBC. It is well settled that, Courts do not sit as an Appellate Authority over the decisions taken by the experts.

Present Court does not find that, the decision making process adopted by the Board or the decision based on the final report is perverse or is contrary to law or against public interest, which would warrant interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while examining any enquiry report, does not go into excruciating detailed facts nor does it substitute its conclusion to the one arrived at by the fact finding body. If the process adopted in the enquiry is fair, reasonable and transparent then the Writ Court does not interfere with the findings to substitute its own conclusion to the one arrived at by the authority simply because another view is possible. Petition dismissed.

Tags :   MISCONDUCT  PROCESS  MAINTAINABILITY

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved