MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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