The Delhi High Court while dismissing a Writ Petition held that the name IBBI which is an abbreviation for Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “IBBI”) cannot be used as a name for a private entity because it would be equivalent to misleading the trade, industry, and stakeholders who are a part of resolution and insolvency processes.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner is a Resolution Professional who incorporated a partnership firm under the name ‘IBBI Insolvency Practitioners LLP’. The name ‘IBBI’ is the name of a Board that was constituted under Section 3 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”).
Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner after which the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee. It was held by the IBBI that the Petitioner has violated Section 208 of IBC read with Regulation 7(2)(a), (b) of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016. The Petitioner was also directed to not undertake any new assignment unless the entity bearing the name ‘IBBI’ is removed from the register of Companies maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Further, vide the said order, Petitioner was suspended for 3 months.
It is against this order that the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
There was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner, and it was observed that the appearance of the Petitioner has been erratic.
It was submitted by the Respondent that the name ‘IBBI Insolvency Practitioners LLP’ has been struck off from the Register of Companies by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the suspension for 3 months has also lapsed.
It was noted by the Bench that the Petitioner anyway could not have used the name ‘IBBI’ for a private entity as it would be equivalent to misleading the trade, industry, and stakeholders who are a part of resolution and insolvency processes.
The decision of the Court:
Since the name of the entity has already been struck off and suspension has also lapsed, the High Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee. Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Kapil Goel v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Pratibha M. Singh
Case No.: W.P.(C) 10663/2018
Advocate for Petitioner: None
Advocate for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Vikas Mehta, Mr. Apoorv Khator
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
