SC Cancels Chhota Rajan's Bail in 2001 Jaya Shetty Murder Case  ||  NCLAT: Workmen Can Claim Dues Post-Layoff If They Worked After Corporate Debtor's Notice Issuance  ||  NCLAT: Debt Can be Proved Through Any Documentary Evidence, No Written Contract Needed.  ||  Madras HC: Railway Authorities Can't Deboard Valid-Ticket Passengers Heading to Protest  ||  Delhi HC: Women’s Entry into Army Corps Can’t be Restricted; Vacant Male Posts Must be Open to Women  ||  Delhi HC: Pressuring Husband to Cut Ties With His Family Amounts to Cruelty; Ground For Divorce  ||  Bombay HC: Magistrate Need Not Pass Preliminary Order U/S 145 CrOC If HC or SC Directs Inquiry  ||  Delhi HC Allows Woman to Terminate 22-Week Pregnancy from False Promise of Marriage  ||  Supreme Court: Reasons Omitted In an Order May be Considered In Specific Circumstances  ||  SC: Execution of Arbitral Award Cannot be Stalled Just Because Section 37 Appeal is Pending    

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