NCLAT: Cannot Withhold Income Tax Refund Received by Bank During CIRP In CD's Account  ||  All. HC: With S. 111 of BNS Covering 'Organised Crime' It Appears Gangsters Act has become Redundant  ||  P&H HC: Cannot Allow Changes in Admission Form after Submission  ||  Bom. HC: Findings in Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Relied Upon While Adjudicating Civil Proceedings  ||  P&H HC Directs Jail Authorities to Decide Parole Applications within Four Months  ||  Allahabad HC: Merely Supporting Pakistan Will Not Prima Facie Attract Section 152 of BNS  ||  HP HC Upholds Wife’s Claim of Adverse Possession after Husband’s Death  ||  Patna HC: Maintenance may be Allowed in Disputed Marriages if Relationship Was Socially Accepted  ||  Karnataka HC: State to Respond in 3 Weeks regarding Mandatory Teaching of Kannada  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Unhappy in Marriage is No Proof of Abetment of Suicide    

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