Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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