Whether Insolvency Professionals (IPs) are Public Servants ? HC Answers the Issue

 Whether the Insolvency Professionals (IP) are Public Servants ? HC Answers the Issue

There are many decisions which deal with insolvency professionals.

In Dr. Arun Mohan v CBI [2023] GCtR 2169 (Delhi), it was held that an Insolvency Professional does not fall within the meaning of “public servant” as ascribed in any of the clauses of sub-section (c ) of section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Complete judgment can be downloaded free of cost from https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/judgment - Date of Judgment is 18 December 2023.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.  

What Falls Beyond IBC, 2016 : Answered in a Recent Judgment

 What Falls Beyond IBC, 2016 : Answered in a Recent Judgment

Sec. 17 of IBC, 2016 refers to situation where the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor shall vest in the interim resolution professional.

More than 6 years have passed since IBC, 2016 was enacted with a specific goal. Several decisions on IBC, 2016 have been passed. It is to be noted that notice under S.24 (3) of IBC, 2016 is to be given to members of suspended Board of Directors as well. But, S.24(4) of IBC, 2016 affects the right of suspended Board of Directors to vote in meetings of CoC.

In a recent case [citation : Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd v Recovery Officer [2023] GCtR 2131 (Madras)], the scope of Sec. 53 of IBC, 2016 was explained. 

It was held that "as far as the dues of the workmen/employees on account of Provident Fund, gratuity or pension are concerned, they shall be governed by Section 36(4) of IBC 2016. Section 36(4) (iii) specifically excludes “all sums due to any workman or employee from the provident fund, the pension fund and the gratuity fund” from the ambit of "liquidation estate assets". Therefore, it is clear that Section 53(1) of the IBC, 2016 shall not be applicable to such dues, which are to be treated outside the liquidation process and liquidation estate assets under the IB Code."

One can download entire judgment free of cost from the following link : - 

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/caseno

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.