Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High 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