Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court

Delhi High Court Reduces Insolvency Professional’s Suspension: No Gross Misconduct Found

03 November 2024 8:47 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has modified the suspension period of Sundares Bhat, an Insolvency Professional (IP), from two years to the period already served. The court's decision comes after Bhat challenged the order of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), which had initially suspended him for various alleged infractions during the liquidation process of ABG Shipyard Limited. The judgment delivered by Justice Subramonium Prasad highlights the nuances of regulatory compliance and the responsibilities of insolvency professionals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

The case revolves around ABG Shipyard Limited, a shipbuilding company undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated by ICICI Bank. Sundares Bhat was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and subsequently as the Liquidator by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad. During the liquidation process, several allegations were made against Bhat, leading to an inspection and a disciplinary action by the IBBI.

One of the key allegations against Bhat was the imposition of non-refundable participation fees on prospective bidders during the auction process. The IBBI contended that this practice was against the spirit of the IBC, aimed at maximizing asset value. However, the court noted that the relevant regulations prohibiting such fees came into effect only in 2021, while the auctions in question occurred in 2019. Consequently, Bhat could not be held guilty of violating non-existent regulations at the time. "The Petitioner has not acted in violation of any express contravention of any Regulations or Clauses," the court observed.
Bhat faced charges for appointing unregistered valuers and for the manner in which valuation reports were handled. The court found that while the appointment of valuers in the name of their firms rather than in their individual capacities was irregular, it did not amount to gross misconduct. "Though what the Petitioner has done is not in strict confirmation of the regulations, the valuation reports have been signed by the registered valuers," the judgment noted.

The most serious charge involved Bhat’s engagement of BDO Restructuring Advisory LLP (BRAL), where he was a partner, and paying more fees to this entity than to himself as the Liquidator. The court upheld the IBBI’s finding of misconduct, stating that the arrangement was a calculated attempt to increase his own remuneration. "The act of the Petitioner is not in conformity with the purport and purpose of the liquidation process," the court stated, emphasizing the ethical responsibilities of insolvency professionals.

Justice Prasad’s judgment underscored the balance between regulatory compliance and the practicalities of insolvency proceedings. It emphasized that while certain actions by Bhat were irregular, they did not constitute gross misconduct warranting a full two-year suspension. The court took a nuanced view, reducing the suspension period to the time already served, highlighting the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions.

Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked, "The fact that fees of BRAL, which was appointed by the Petitioner to provide support services to the Liquidator, exceeds the fees of the Liquidator is sufficient to show misconduct on the part of the Petitioner." However, the court also noted, "This Court does not find any serious infirmity in the decision taken by the Petitioner which would amount to gross misconduct."

The Delhi High Court’s ruling modifies the disciplinary action against Sundares Bhat, reflecting a balanced approach to regulatory enforcement in the insolvency profession. By reducing the suspension period, the judgment acknowledges the complexities faced by insolvency professionals while reiterating the importance of ethical conduct. This decision is expected to influence future disciplinary proceedings and the interpretation of regulations under the IBC.

Date of Decision: May 27, 2024
Sundares Bhat v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Latest Legal News