An IP must not act with mala fide or be negligent while performing his functions and duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

Last updated: 03 December 2020
Quick Summary
This judgement clarifies that Insolvency Professionals (IPs) must perform their duties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) without acting in bad faith or being negligent. The case involved Mr. Ajay Gupta, an IP, who was found to have contravened certain provisions of the IBC and related regulations. Specifically, he was alleged to have failed in his duty to preserve and protect the assets of a corporate debtor, leading to preferential transactions by the former management.

Court :
IBBI

Brief :
This Order disposes of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) No. IBBI/IP/INSP/2019/32 dated 17th June, 2020 issued to Mr. Ajay Gupta, 7-A, Siddhartha Extension, Pocket-B, New Delhi-110013, who is a Professional Member of the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professional of ICAI (IPA) and an Insolvency Professional (IP) registered with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) with Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IPP00140/ 2017-18/10304

Citation :
No. IBBI/DC/46/2020

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
  • No Ads
  • WhatsApp Broadcasts
  • Daily E-Newsletter
  • Unlimited Judgements Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

 

Guest
Published in Corporate Law
Views : 226
downloaded 421 times
Share Report Abuse
Comments

Join CAclubindia WhatsApp Finance Community & stay updated with the latest TAX news, compliance alerts and important updates all in one place!

Recent Judgments :

  1. CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit on Proforma Invoice Where Service Tax Payment and Service Receipt Are Undisputed
  2. No 10% pre-deposit required on any Penalty-only order from SCN issued prior to October 01, 2025
  3. Ratification is no substitute for recommendation - Notifications travelling beyond GST Council recommendations are ultra vires
  4. Disparity between seigniorage fee paid and supply value declared in GSTR-1 justifies invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act
  5. Interest on Delayed Payment of GST Arises by Operation of Law and Cannot be Waived by Courts
  6. Supreme Court to examine whether the six-month time limit for issuance of show cause notice under Section 74(2) of the CGST Act is mandatory or directory
  7. Advocates ought to be summoned only in rare and exceptional circumstances
  8. Unsigned Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 is Invalid as Absence of the Assessing Officer's Signature is an Incurable Jurisdictional Defect
  9. SC to examine whether an assessee can be relegated to the appellate remedy, when the challenge is to a binding Circular
  10. Mere Expiry of E-Way Bill Without Intent to Evade Tax Cannot Justify 200% Penalty

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member Super Vk ChariSuper Vk ChariPro Member RajeshRajeshPro Member kopparapu bheemaraokopparapu bheemaraoPro Member sandip deysandip deyPro Member CA CS DISA FAFD AJAY SINGHCA CS DISA FAFD AJAY SINGH
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category




Follow