Challenged to IBC by a CA refused by Supreme Court for want of locus and bonafide.

Challenged to IBC by a Chartered Accountant refused by Supreme Court for want of locus and bonafide.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3619 (2022) (11) SC

In the instant case, a Chartered Accountant (CA) has in the guise of public interest to sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of Section 27 and the proviso to Section 30(5) of the Insolvency and   Bankruptcy Code 2016 together with paragraph 13 of a Notification dated 11 October 2022 issued by the Reserve Bank of India dealing with the review of the regulatory framework for Assets Reconstruction Companies.

It was also prayed to frame guidelines and directives to grant the NCLT and NCLAT the power to prevent fraudulent, malicious and deceitful conduct of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the IBC. It is notable that the Petitioner had impleaded four private entities as respondents in the Petition. One of the respondent was a successful resolution applicant before the NCLT at whose behest a petition is pending.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and expressed serious doubts on the bona fides of the petitioner who on the one hand sought to invoke Article 32 of the Constitution in public interest, while,  on the other hand, impleaded four private entities in respect of whom relief was sought.    

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that any challenge to the provision of a  statute   in  proceedings  such  as  the  present must  be  instituted  by  a  party  who  is   directly  and  immediately  affected  by the implementation of the statutory  provision. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the Petitioner CA had not been able to show locus and bonafides.

Accordingly, the Division Bench lead by Hon’ble Chief Justice dismissed the Writ Petition.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.
• Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC
• CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price
• Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities
• No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT