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 >>

• Penalty u/s 270A deleted as assessee filed revised computation during scrutiny
• Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT
• Merely ex-parte rectifying computation without amending assessment order not make it nullity- ITAT
• Once assessee discharges primary onus, it shifts to AO to bring evidence to contrary – ITAT
• Cost Inflation Index for FY/Tax Year 2026-27 notified by CBDT. See Up-to-date Table of CII