Appointment of valuers within prescribed timeline under Regulation 27 of CIRP Regulations - duty to take control and custody of assets during CIRP and scope of 'symbolic' versus 'physical' control - appointment of professionals by the resolution professional and prohibition on abdicating authority to the Committee of Creditors - independence of insolvency professional and contravention of the Code of ConductAppointment of valuers within prescribed timeline under Regulation 27 of CIRP Regulations - role of valuers in maximisation of asset value - Whether the IRP/RP contravened Regulation 27 by not appointing valuers within seven days and thereby violated related duties under the Code and IP Regulations. - HELD THAT: - Emails dated 29.08.2017 clearly evidence that two valuers were appointed within seven days of commencement of CIRP. Though valuers sought confirmation of their fees and final ratification by the CoC, correspondence shows they commenced work and submitted reports thereafter. Given the mandate of Regulation 27 to appoint valuers within seven days, the IRP complied with the timeline; the subsequent CoC confirmation related to fees and did not convert the initial appointment into non-compliance. The RP was afforded opportunity to respond to the SCN and the allegation in this respect is not upheld.No contravention of Regulation 27; no breach of the cited duties under the Code or IP Regulations in respect of appointment of valuers.Duty to take control and custody of assets during CIRP and scope of 'symbolic' versus 'physical' control - Section 18/Section 25 duties of IRP/RP to preserve and protect assets - Whether the RP failed to take effective control and custody of the corporate debtor's assets and thereby violated duties under the Code and IP Regulations. - HELD THAT: - Sections 18 and 25 require the IRP/RP to take control and custody of assets but do not prescribe a specific timeline nor mandate physical possession in all circumstances. The facts show initial absence of resistance, later hostile conduct by a director, steps taken by the RP (additional security, reporting to the Adjudicating Authority and filing under section 19) and successful completion of CIRP within prescribed period. While ideally complete physical control and replacement of personnel is expected, the Code does not require absolute physical takeover within a fixed time and symbolic control may, depending on circumstances, suffice. On the facts, the RP cannot be held liable for contravention of the cited provisions concerning custody.No contravention found in respect of taking control and custody of assets; allegations on this ground are not sustained.Appointment of professionals by the resolution professional and prohibition on abdicating authority to the Committee of Creditors - independence of insolvency professional and contravention of the Code of Conduct - Whether the RP contravened Section 25(2)(d) and related provisions by allowing the Committee of Creditors to approve appointment and terms of engagement of the forensic auditor, thereby compromising his independence. - HELD THAT: - Section 25(2)(d) requires the resolution professional to appoint accountants, legal and other professionals 'in the manner as specified by Board', and the RP must not delegate or abdicate this authority to the CoC. The minutes of the 5th CoC meeting record that the Committee discussed and 'approved the appointment and other terms and scope' of the proposed forensic engagement, indicating that the RP sought CoC approval and thereby compromised his independent authority. Although there is no prescribed timeframe for appointment of a forensic auditor and the delay is not made a basis for culpability, the act of permitting CoC approval of appointment and terms constitutes abdication of the RP's statutory role and breaches duties and the Code of Conduct.Contravention established: the RP abdicated his authority in favour of the CoC in appointment and terms of the forensic auditor and thereby breached Section 25(2)(d), attendant duties and the Code of Conduct.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee dismissed allegations relating to delayed appointment of valuers and failure to take custody of assets, but found that the resolution professional compromised his independence by allowing the Committee of Creditors to approve the appointment and terms of engagement of the forensic auditor. In view of the circumstances and completion of CIRP within time, the RP is issued a warning and no further punitive action is imposed; the show cause notice is disposed of and the order is to be forwarded to the professional institute and the NCLT registry.

Independence of insolvency professional - Insolvency resolution process costs - Inclusion of non-CIRP expenses in IRPC - Code of Conduct for insolvency professionals - Committee of Creditors' role vis-a -vis duties of resolution professional - Approval of fees and expenses by Committee of Creditors - Recovery of expenditure not forming part of IRPCIndependence of insolvency professional - Insolvency resolution process costs - Inclusion of non-CIRP expenses in IRPC - Code of Conduct for insolvency professionals - Whether the resolution professional compromised independence by directing valuation of personal guarantor's properties and including the cost thereof in the insolvency resolution process costs. - HELD THAT: - The resolution professional directed two valuers to value assets of the corporate debtor together with assets of the personal guarantor on instructions of the sole CoC member. Payments for those valuations were routed through the RP's personal account: Bank of India reimbursed the RP and the RP issued cheques to the valuers. The DC found that valuing properties of the personal guarantor (which were not under the RP's control) and including the related cost in IRPC constituted a procedural lapse. Routing payments via the RP's personal account and acting on CoC directions showed that the RP did not maintain independence as required by the Code of Conduct and the statutory scheme, and thereby contravened the duties of an IP and relevant provisions of the Code and Regulations. The DC observed that such costs ordinarily should not form part of IRPC and, where incurred, should be recovered and deposited into the corporate debtor's account; however, given the factual peculiarity that the sole CoC member bore the expenses, recovery was considered superfluous in this case. The DC also noted lack of clarity in earlier period regarding coverage of surety's assets under moratorium prior to the 2018 amendment, which is a contextual factor but does not negate the lapse. [Paras 3, 4]Found that the RP acted without requisite independence by directing valuation of guarantor's properties and including those costs in IRPC; procedural lapse established but remedied by a warning in light of factual circumstances.Approval of fees and expenses by Committee of Creditors - Resolution professional costs - Whether the resolution professional erred in not having the fees of the statutory auditor fixed by the Committee of Creditors. - HELD THAT: - Regulation 34 requires the committee to fix expenses to be incurred on or by the resolution professional. The minutes do not show fixation of the auditor's fees in a CoC meeting, although the sole CoC member (Bank of India) approved the appointment and fees by email. No payment has been made to the auditor and therefore no financial burden fell on the corporate debtor. The DC found procedural non-compliance in not recording fixation of fees in CoC minutes but, given the sole-member CoC's email approval and absence of mens rea or financial prejudice to the corporate debtor, took a lenient view. [Paras 3]RP failed to get the auditor's fees fixed in CoC meeting minutes, but due to sole-member CoC approval by email and no payment made, the lapse warranted leniency rather than punitive action.Code of Conduct for insolvency professionals - Committee of Creditors' role vis-a -vis duties of resolution professional - Appropriate disposal of the show cause notice in light of the findings and the nascent state of the insolvency regime. - HELD THAT: - The DC recognized the centrality of the IP's role and emphasized the need for independence, diligence and transparency. Considering the emerging nature of the insolvency profession, absence of mala fides, the sole-member CoC context, and that the disputed valuation costs were borne by the sole creditor, the DC exercised regulatory discretion under the Inspection and Investigation Regulations and IP Regulations to avoid harsher sanctions. The DC directed issuance of a warning, required strict adherence to law in future, and forwarded the order to the IP's professional institute and the NCLT registry for information. [Paras 5]Show cause notice disposed with a warning to the RP to act diligently and independently; order to be forwarded to the IP's institute and the NCLT registry.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee found procedural lapses in the RP's conduct-principally compromise of independence by directing valuation of guarantor's properties and inclusion of those costs in IRPC, and failure to record fixation of auditor's fees-but, in view of the sole-member CoC, absence of mala fide intent, and the nascent insolvency framework, disposed of the show cause notice with a formal warning and directed circulation of the order to the professional institute and the NCLT registry.

Duty to file application for avoidance of transactions - disclosure obligations of an insolvency professional - inclusion of lender's legal counsel fees in insolvency resolution process costs - conflict of interest in appointment of professionals and valuers - sharing of resolution professional's fees with a firm - acceptance of expressions of interest and timelines for submission - professional standards of care, independence and objectivity of an insolvency professionalDuty to file application for avoidance of transactions - professional standards of care, independence and objectivity of an insolvency professional - Delay in filing application for avoidance of undervalued transactions by the resolution professional. - HELD THAT: - The resolution professional filed an application under section 45 on 19th March 2018, 236 days after commencement of CIRP. Prior to the Third Amendment (w.e.f. 3rd July 2018) there was no statutory timeline for filing such application; model timeline prescribing 135 days was applicable only to CIRPs commencing on or after 3rd July 2018. While the DC found the RP's conduct showed casualness - notably referral to CoC and a two month delay after valuation - in absence of an explicit statutory timeline the RP could not be held legally liable for the delay, though the conduct was criticized as lacking urgency and diligence. [Paras 3]Delay noted and criticised but no liability imposed for late filing in view of absence of an explicit statutory timeline.Disclosure obligations of an insolvency professional - professional standards of care, independence and objectivity of an insolvency professional - Failure to disclose appointment/relationship with BDO Restructuring Advisory India LLP (an IPE) to the Insolvency Professional Agency as required by the Board's circulars. - HELD THAT: - The RP failed to make the mandated disclosures within the prescribed time and gave inconsistent explanations to the Inspecting Authority. The DC held that the RP could not satisfactorily justify non-adherence to the Code and the Circular; non-disclosure of taking services from BDO (of which the RP was a partner) violated Section 208(2)(a) of the Code, Regulation 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(h) of the IBBI (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016 and clauses of the Code of Conduct in the First Schedule. [Paras 3]Non-disclosure held to be a contravention of statutory and regulatory obligations.Inclusion of lender's legal counsel fees in insolvency resolution process costs - professional standards of care, independence and objectivity of an insolvency professional - Inclusion of lender's legal counsel fees in IRPC and payment from corporate debtor during CIRP. - HELD THAT: - The Code and Regulation 31 do not permit inclusion of lender's legal counsel fees (incurred by financial creditors) as IRPC. The RP admitted charging such fees to IRPC, including amounts for services rendered prior to the insolvency commencement date. The DC found that by agreeing to include and charge these fees, and by conditioning the arrangement on reimbursement only if the Board objected, the RP compromised his independence and contravened Section 208(2)(a), Regulation 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(h) of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations and clauses 3 and 5 of the Code of Conduct. The DC directed that the RP must secure reimbursement to the corporate debtor as minuted and produce evidence of deposit within 30 days. [Paras 3, 5]RP found to have contravened the Code and Regulations; directed to secure reimbursement into the corporate debtor's account and produce evidence; penalty and further directions imposed.Conflict of interest in appointment of professionals and valuers - professional standards of care, independence and objectivity of an insolvency professional - Appointment of Price Waterhouse entities (valuer/due diligence) and subsequent joining of similar-named firm by the RP - whether this established a conflict of interest. - HELD THAT: - PWC was appointed as valuer on 31st July 2017; the RP joined PwC Professionals Services LLP (PPS) on 23rd April 2018, and PPL was later appointed for due diligence on 21st May 2018. The entities PWC/PPL/PPS are distinct. On the date of appointment of PPL no partner of PPS was a common partner in PPL. The DC observed no direct relation or contemporaneous conflict on relevant dates and therefore did not find a contravention in this respect. [Paras 3]No conflict of interest established from the appointments and subsequent change of employment; no contravention found on this ground.Sharing of resolution professional's fees with a firm - professional standards of care, independence and objectivity of an insolvency professional - Sharing of RP's fee with BDO Restructuring Advisory India LLP and invoicing arrangements. - HELD THAT: - The RP was appointed and approved by CoC in his individual capacity; only an individual can render services as an IP. Material on record showed that fee was shared with BDO up to December 2017 and subsequently pursuant to consent terms. The RP failed to produce any lawful basis for sharing remuneration that is payable to an individual IP with a firm. The DC held that such sharing contravened Section 5(13), Section 208(2)(a) of the Code and Regulations 33 and 34 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. [Paras 3]Fee-sharing arrangement held contrary to the Code and Regulations; treated as contravention.Acceptance of expressions of interest and timelines for submission - professional standards of care, independence and objectivity of an insolvency professional - Acceptance of EOIs/resolution plans submitted after the published last date of submission. - HELD THAT: - EOIs from certain applicants were accepted after the last published date but within the broader timeline permitted under the erstwhile Regulation 39(1) (submission up to 150th day). There was no specific provision in the erstwhile Regulations then in force forbidding the RP's conduct and the RP placed EOIs before the CoC which decided on the matter. The DC also noted relevant NCLT guidance against splitting the process. Accordingly, the DC did not hold the RP liable for accepting EOIs received after the advertised last date. [Paras 3]Acceptance of late EOIs not held to be a contravention in absence of specific regulatory prohibition applicable to that CIRP.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee found multiple contraventions by the resolution professional relating to disclosure failures, improper inclusion of lender's counsel fees in IRPC and unlawful sharing of RP fees with a firm, while declining to penalise the RP for delay in filing avoidance application and for acceptance of certain EOIs. The DC imposed a monetary penalty, directed restitution to the corporate debtor by securing reimbursement of the lender's counsel fees and prohibited the RP from accepting new IRP/RP assignments until the penalty is paid and evidence of reimbursement is produced; the IPA and the NCLT registry were informed of the order.

Disciplinary proceedings against insolvency professionals - power of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to regulate and discipline insolvency professionals - Code of Conduct for insolvency professionals - misrepresentation to a regulatory authority - fit and proper person - principles of natural justice in disposal of a show cause notice - binding effect of orders of the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Authority on the IBBIMisrepresentation to a regulatory authority - Code of Conduct for insolvency professionals - disciplinary proceedings against insolvency professionals - Findings that the noticee misrepresented facts concerning receipt of the AA order and failed to preserve relevant records, amounting to contravention of the Code of Conduct and Regulations. - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee accepted the Board's evidence (including WhatsApp messages) that the noticee had received the AA order earlier than he claimed and had not preserved the relevant email, concluding that his explanation that he received the order on a later date was false and misleading. In consequence, the Committee held that these established misrepresentations had a serious bearing on the time bound corporate insolvency resolution process and constituted contraventions of regulation 7(2)(a) and (h) of the IBBI (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016 read with the relevant clauses of the Code of Conduct. The noticee did not contest these allegations at the hearing and earlier responses were relied upon for decision. [Paras 5, 6]The SCN is upheld to the extent of established misrepresentation; in exercise of powers under section 220(2) read with regulation 11 sub regulations (7) and (8), the noticee is directed to work for at least six months as an intern with a senior insolvency professional and shall not seek or accept any assignment under the Code until he complies with this direction.Binding effect of orders of the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Authority on the IBBI - power of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to regulate and discipline insolvency professionals - principles of natural justice in disposal of a show cause notice - Whether the orders of the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority are binding on the Board so as to preclude the Board from independently disposing of the SCN. - HELD THAT: - The Committee held that the law does not require that a show cause notice issued by the Board be first considered by the Adjudicating Authority or that the Board must adopt findings of the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Authority. The IBBI, as the disciplinary authority, has the power and duty to independently consider and dispose of disciplinary proceedings by a reasoned order in adherence to principles of natural justice. Consequently, prior orders of the AA or Appellate Authority do not bind the Board so as to oust its jurisdiction to pass independent disciplinary orders. [Paras 2, 4]The Board is not bound to close or adopt findings of disciplinary proceedings solely because the AA or Appellate Authority has entertained applications; the DC must pass a reasoned order after considering the SCN on merits.Typographical error in appointment order - time bound nature of CIRP - fit and proper person - Whether a typographical error in the AA's appointment order justified non commencement of the CIRP by the IRP. - HELD THAT: - The Committee observed that a mere typographical error in one paragraph of the AA order, where the address, registration number and email were correctly recorded elsewhere, could not justify an insolvency professional's failure to commence the time bound CIRP. An IP is required to use his name and address as registered with the Board; the noticee had used variant spellings in different professional contexts and therefore could not rely on the typographical mistake as an excuse for inaction. However, out of deference to earlier judicial observations, the Committee did not pursue this aspect further for additional findings. [Paras 5]A typographical error in the AA order is not a sufficient excuse for not commencing a time bound CIRP; the Committee, however, did not proceed further on this aspect.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee upheld the SCN insofar as the noticee misrepresented receipt of the AA order and failed to preserve material records, directing a six month internship with a senior insolvency professional and restraining the noticee from accepting assignments under the Code until compliance; the Committee also clarified that the IBBI must independently dispose of disciplinary proceedings and is not bound to adopt AA/Appellate Authority findings, and declared that a typographical error in an appointment order cannot justify failure to commence a time bound CIRP. The directions take effect after 30 days and copies of the order are to be forwarded for monitoring and information.

Exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act - impediment to investigation and prosecution - quasi-judicial disciplinary proceedings - disclosure of identities of persons under investigation - procedural safeguards to prevent appointment of persons with pending disciplinary proceedingsExemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act - impediment to investigation and prosecution - disclosure of identities of persons under investigation - Disclosure of the list of insolvency professionals against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending is not required to be furnished under the RTI Act - HELD THAT: - The Board conducts inspections, issues show cause notices and refers matters to the Disciplinary Committee; these proceedings are quasi judicial and may be at various stages (paras 6-7). Disclosure of the names of insolvency professionals against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending would risk unwarranted public attention, jeopardise the investigatory and adjudicatory process and may wrongly stigmatise persons who have only been issued show cause notices and not finally adjudicated (para 12). The Board's procedures and safeguards - including the consent in Form 2 to be given to the Adjudicating Authority, a bench wise six monthly panel of IPs cleared of disciplinary issues, and a password protected list with remarks against names where proceedings are pending - provide means to prevent appointment of IPs subject to disciplinary proceedings (para 10). Applying the test in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, disclosure would impede investigation or prosecution and therefore falls within the exemption; accordingly the CPIO's refusal to disclose the requested list is upheld (paras 11-12). [Paras 6, 7, 10, 12]The request for disclosure of the list of insolvency professionals against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and the appeal is dismissed.Final Conclusion: The First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO's refusal to disclose the names of insolvency professionals with pending disciplinary proceedings under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, noting that disclosure would impede investigation or adjudication and that administrative safeguards exist to prevent appointment of such professionals.

Reasonableness of professional remuneration - remuneration as a reasonable reflection of work - professional independence and conflict of interest - appointment of resolution professional by Committee of Creditors - non-cooperation with inspecting authority and submission of documents - misrepresentation to the Adjudicating Authority - use of stale information and professional incompetence - suspension of registration as disciplinary sanctionReasonableness of professional remuneration - remuneration as a reasonable reflection of work - use of stale information and professional incompetence - Whether the fees charged or sought by the insolvency professional were unreasonable and demonstrated professional incompetence or mala fides. - HELD THAT: - The Committee found that the initial term sheet proposed disproportionately high fees which were reduced only to secure appointment and were later sought to be increased after appointment. Reliance on outdated financials to fix the earlier fee and attempts to increase fee post-approval demonstrated lack of bona fides and poor professional competence. The Code of Conduct requires remuneration to be a reasonable reflection of work; discretion in charging fee must be exercised as a reasonably prudent professional. Similar reasoning applied to another CIRP where a consolidated fee far exceeding the applicant's claim lacked logical basis. [Paras 2]Found that the fees charged/sought were abnormally high, demonstrated malafide conduct and professional incompetence, and contravened the applicable duties and standards.Appointment of resolution professional by Committee of Creditors - professional independence and conflict of interest - Whether the insolvency professional compromised the statutory role of stakeholders by contracting with an applicant to pre empt appointment as resolution professional and fix his fee. - HELD THAT: - The IP signed term sheets with applicants providing for his appointment and fee as RP though the statutory mechanism vests appointment and fixation of fee in the CoC. Such prior agreements with an applicant, who lacks competence to appoint the RP, constitute an attempt to lock in appointment and indicate collusion that compromises independence. The conduct denudes the CoC of its statutory right and impinges on impartiality required of an IP. [Paras 2]Found that the IP attempted to pre-empt CoC's role and thereby violated duties of independence and impartiality.Non-cooperation with inspecting authority and submission of documents - submission of fabricated or incomplete documents - Whether the IP failed to cooperate with the inspection and submitted incomplete or non-genuine term sheets. - HELD THAT: - The Inspecting Authority's request for the term sheet in one CIRP was not complied with; the term sheet subsequently provided omitted essential fee terms present in the IP's other contemporaneous term sheets. The discrepancies in content and timing created justified suspicion about genuineness. Failure to provide material called for amounted to non-cooperation and hindrance to the Board's work. [Paras 2]Found that the IP did not cooperate with the inspection and submitted documents that gave rise to suspicion of fabrication or incompleteness.Professional independence and conflict of interest - appointment of IRP and concentration of assignments - Whether proposing and assigning multiple CIRP appointments to the IP's spouse constituted a breach of independence and other professional duties. - HELD THAT: - The IP filed applications proposing his spouse as IRP in multiple CIRPs, resulting in a concentration of assignments to a novice IP with no prior experience. Given the powers vested in an IRP and the need for impartiality, assigning 15 CIRPs from a single source to a related person without merit suggested considerations other than competence and undermined independence, integrity and impartiality. [Paras 2]Found that assigning multiple CIRPs to the spouse amounted to breach of independence and related professional duties.Misrepresentation to the Adjudicating Authority - professional competence and accurate record-keeping - Whether the IP made misrepresentations in reports to the Adjudicating Authority and habitually relied on typographical errors and oversights as explanations. - HELD THAT: - The IP reported that the CoC decided to recuse the proposed IRP but the minutes did not record any such decision. The IP repeatedly invoked explanations such as oversight, typographical error or misclassification for inconsistent or missing records. The Committee regarded these recurring explanations as inadequate and concluded that such misrepresentations and deficient record-keeping violated duties of integrity and professional conduct. [Paras 2]Found that the IP made misrepresentations to the Adjudicating Authority and breached obligations of integrity and accurate reporting.Suspension of registration as disciplinary sanction - What disciplinary action should be imposed for the contraventions found. - HELD THAT: - Having found multiple breaches of the Code, regulations and the Code of Conduct - including unreasonable fees, attempts to pre-empt CoC, non-cooperation with inspection, conflicts of interest and misrepresentations - the Committee exercised its statutory disciplinary powers to direct suspension of the IP's registration for a specified period, subject to conditions for re training and supervised internship to address deficiencies. [Paras 3]Directed suspension of the IP's registration for two years with conditions for education and supervised internship; specified limited transitional permissions and implementation provisions.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee found that the insolvency professional contravened multiple duties under the Code, related regulations and the Code of Conduct - including unreasonable fee practices, attempts to pre-empt CoC appointments, non-cooperation with inspection, conflicts arising from assigning multiple CIRPs to a related person, and misrepresentations - and imposed a two year suspension of his registration with mandated re training and supervised internship, effective after 30 days.

Independence and impartiality of an insolvency professional - Conflict of interest arising from appointment of a relative - Capacity and availability to discharge concurrent assignments - Pre-emption of Committee of Creditors' right to appoint Resolution Professional and fix fees - Reasonableness of professional fees and misconduct by quoting exorbitant remuneration - Fit and proper person test for continued registration as an insolvency professional - Disciplinary action: cancellation of registration and debarmentIndependence and impartiality of an insolvency professional - Conflict of interest arising from appointment of a relative - Consent by an insolvency professional to act as IRP/RP in CIRPs where the appointing professional is her husband compromises independence and impartiality - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee found that acceptance of 15 assignments from a single source - the husband who was the decision-maker for the corporate debtors - created a relationship that impaired both actual independence and the appearance of independence. The Committee emphasized that an IP must not only be impartial but also appear to be so; 15 simultaneous assignments from the spouse, to an otherwise inexperienced IP who had no other source of work, indicated considerations other than merits and evidenced collusive conduct that impinged on integrity and impartiality. The Committee treated such conduct as unfair even where the regulations do not explicitly enumerate every prohibited act, because it undermines confidence in the profession and the insolvency process. [Paras 5, 6]Ms. Ruia's consent to act in CIRPs assigned by her husband constituted a compromise of independence and impartiality and amounted to professional misconduct.Capacity and availability to discharge concurrent assignments - Taking consent to act as IRP/RP in numerous simultaneous CIRPs despite inexperience and inability to devote requisite time contravenes obligations under the Code - HELD THAT: - The Committee applied the statutory duties under the Code which require an IRP/RP to protect and preserve the corporate debtor's assets and manage operations. It was held to be inconceivable that a novice IP who had not handled any CIRP could responsibly act as IRP/RP in 15 CIRPs at once and discharge the functions akin to exercising boards' powers for multiple debtors. The Code proscribes an IP from taking too many assignments where the IP is unlikely to devote adequate time; the Committee rejected the submission that the IP would withdraw from surplus assignments after obtaining a few, noting the cost and disruption such withdrawals would cause to stakeholders and the insolvency process. [Paras 5, 6]Ms. Ruia's consent to multiple simultaneous assignments, given her lack of experience and capacity, breached the obligations under the Code and amounted to misconduct.Reasonableness of professional fees and misconduct by quoting exorbitant remuneration - Pre-emption of Committee of Creditors' right to appoint Resolution Professional and fix fees - Agreeing to exorbitant fees and locking in appointment/fees with an appointing party before constitution of the CoC pre-empts the CoC and contravenes duties under the Code and regulations - HELD THAT: - The Committee concluded that quoted remunerations such as very large lump-sum fees for IRP/RP services were not a reasonable reflection of work necessarily and properly undertaken. By contracting to act as RP and fixing fees with the applicant (who was not competent to appoint the RP), the professional effectively denied the Committee of Creditors its statutory right to appoint the RP and determine fees. This conduct was treated as an illegitimate pre-emption of the CoC's authority and a contravention of professional obligations. [Paras 5]Ms. Ruia's contractual terms of exorbitant fees and pre-empting the CoC's functions constituted contraventions and professional misconduct.Disciplinary action: cancellation of registration and debarment - Fit and proper person test for continued registration as an insolvency professional - Whether the cumulative conduct rendered the insolvency professional not a fit and proper person and warranted cancellation of registration and debarment - HELD THAT: - Having found repeated and deliberate contraventions - including compromised independence, incapacity to discharge multiple assignments, and contracting exorbitant fees that pre-empted the CoC - the Committee held that such collusive conduct established that the professional was not a fit and proper person to continue as an IP. The Committee also observed that the misconduct was repeated after earlier disciplinary proceedings and adverse judicial observations, underscoring deliberate disregard for professional norms. Consequentially, the Committee exercised its powers under the Code and relevant regulations to cancel registration and impose a period of debarment. [Paras 5, 6, 7]Registration was cancelled and the professional was debarred from seeking fresh registration or providing services under the Code for ten years for not being a fit and proper person.Double jeopardy/double punishment objection in disciplinary proceedings - Prior disciplinary action in respect of a separate CIRP does not preclude fresh proceedings for similar contraventions committed in other, distinct CIRPs - HELD THAT: - The Committee rejected the submission that the prior adjudication in respect of Madhucon Projects Ltd. precluded action for similar conduct in other CIRPs. It distinguished the criminal double jeopardy principle (which prevents being tried twice for the same offence on the same facts) and held that each CIRP where contraventions occurred constituted a separate cause of action. Thus, repetition of similar misconduct across different CIRPs could attract fresh disciplinary consequences. The Committee further noted that the respondent had an opportunity to withdraw or modify consents after earlier adverse observations but failed to do so. [Paras 5]The previous disciplinary order did not bar action in respect of contraventions committed in other CIRPs; fresh proceedings and sanctions were permissible.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee found that Ms. Bhavna Sanjay Ruia repeatedly compromised independence and impartiality by accepting multiple assignments from her husband, undertook more concurrent CIRPs than she could competently handle, contracted exorbitant fees that pre-empted the Committee of Creditors, and thereby ceased to be a fit and proper person; consequently her registration as an insolvency professional was cancelled and she was debarred from seeking fresh registration or providing services under the Code for ten years.

Duties of Interim Resolution Professional and Resolution Professional - obligation to make public announcement and circulate information memorandum - duty to invite resolution plans from prospective resolution applicants - duty to manage corporate debtor as a going concern - resignation of Insolvency Professional without prior permission of Adjudicating Authority - appointment of registered valuers by the IRP - non-cooperation by corporate debtor and procedure under the Code - disciplinary power to impose penalty and training requirement on Insolvency ProfessionalDuties of Interim Resolution Professional and Resolution Professional - obligation to make public announcement and circulate information memorandum - duty to invite resolution plans from prospective resolution applicants - appointment of registered valuers by the IRP - Whether Mr. Kejriwal conducted the corporate insolvency resolution processes in compliance with his statutory duties as IRP/RP including public announcement, provision of information memorandum, inviting resolution plans and appointment of valuers - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee found that Mr. Kejriwal failed to discharge core functions of the CIRP: he did not make timely public announcements or prepare and provide the information memorandum, did not invite resolution plans from prospective lenders/investors as required, and failed to appoint valuers within the stipulated time. His excuses-illness, lack of funds, or anticipated non-approval of costs by the CoC-were rejected as inconsistent with regulatory requirements and his statutory obligations. The Committee emphasised that inviting resolution plans and facilitating information to prospective applicants is central to CIRP and that appointment of valuers is an IRP's obligation to be performed before constitution of the CoC. [Paras 4]Found to have violated statutory duties relating to conducting the resolution process and facilitating resolution plans.Duty to manage corporate debtor as a going concern - non-cooperation by corporate debtor and procedure under the Code - Whether Mr. Kejriwal ran the corporate debtors as going concerns and followed the procedure if he faced non-cooperation - HELD THAT: - The Committee concluded that Mr. Kejriwal did not take meaningful steps to manage the corporate debtors as going concerns under the Code. Apart from sending a few letters seeking documents, he did not take over management, nor did he invoke the Adjudicating Authority under the procedure for non-cooperation in the record. The Committee found no evidence that he sought directions under the Code or made efforts to operate the businesses during CIRP; the claimed non-cooperation did not justify inaction. [Paras 4]Found to have failed in the obligation to manage the corporate debtors as going concerns and to follow the prescribed procedure for non-cooperation.Resignation of Insolvency Professional without prior permission of Adjudicating Authority - Whether Mr. Kejriwal's resignation as RP without prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority was permissible - HELD THAT: - The Committee observed that after volunteering and being appointed as RP by the CoC, Mr. Kejriwal resigned without seeking prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority. His stated reasons-personal reasons and non-payment of fees-were found insufficient to justify unilateral resignation. The Adjudicating Authority had recorded concern over resignation without prior permission and replacement of the RP led to delay in the CIRP; the Committee held that resignation in such circumstances breached the regulatory framework and his professional responsibility. [Paras 3, 4, 5]Resignation without prior permission was improper and constituted a breach of obligations.Disciplinary power to impose penalty and training requirement on Insolvency Professional - What disciplinary action is warranted for the violations found against Mr. Kejriwal - HELD THAT: - Weighing the violations and two mitigating factors (period of illness and that the CDs were not effectively going concerns), the Disciplinary Committee exercised its powers to impose remedial measures. It directed imposition of a monetary penalty equal to one hundred percent of fees payable as IRP and RP in the two CIRPs, payable to the Board for deposit in the Consolidated Fund of India, and mandated completion of the pre-registration educational course specified under the Regulations before accepting future assignments. The directions include timelines for payment and notification to the IP's Agency and the NCLT Secretary. [Paras 5, 6]Monetary penalty and mandatory training imposed; order to be complied with within prescribed time and communicated to relevant authorities.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee held that Mr. Sandip Kumar Kejriwal breached multiple statutory and regulatory obligations as IRP/RP in two CIRPs by failing to carry out essential CIRP functions, manage the debtors as going concerns, and resigning without prior permission; it imposed a monetary penalty equal to the total fees payable in those CIRPs and directed mandatory completion of the pre-registration educational course before accepting further assignments.

De-recognition of Insolvency Professional Entities - Compliance with regulation 12(1) of the Insolvency Professionals Regulations - De-recognition under regulation 14 - Continuing joint and several liability under sub-regulation (3) of regulation 13 - No power to grant extension of statutory timelinesDe-recognition of Insolvency Professional Entities - Compliance with regulation 12(1) of the Insolvency Professionals Regulations - De-recognition under regulation 14 - De-recognition of thirteen Insolvency Professional Entities for non-compliance with regulation 12(1) and related directions - HELD THAT: - The Board had amended the Regulations to require IPEs recognised as on 1 April 2018 to comply with specified clauses of regulation 12(1) by prescribed dates and issued a circular and subsequent e-mails informing recognised IPEs of the compliance requirements and deadlines. Several IPEs sought extension of time, but the Board declined those requests because the Regulations do not permit relaxation or extension of the prescribed timelines. Ten IPEs were de-recognised after their requests for extension were refused; two IPEs were de-recognised after failing to respond to the Board's communication; and one IPE was de-recognised after it confirmed non-compliance. The Board therefore applied regulation 14 to de-recognise the named IPEs with effect from 1 October 2018. Consequent directions require surrender of original certificates of recognition and informing the Registrar of Companies. The order also records that, notwithstanding de-recognition, the IPEs remain jointly and severally liable for acts or omissions of their partners or directors as insolvency professionals pursuant to sub-regulation (3) of regulation 13. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]Thirteen specified IPEs are de-recognised with effect from 1st October, 2018 for non-compliance with regulation 12(1); they must surrender original certificates and inform the Registrar of Companies; they remain jointly and severally liable for acts or omissions of partners or directors as insolvency professionals.Final Conclusion: The Board de-recognised the thirteen listed Insolvency Professional Entities for failure to comply with regulation 12(1) within the statutory timelines, directed surrender of certificates and intimation to the Registrar of Companies, and affirmed continuing liability of the entities for acts or omissions of their partners or directors under sub-regulation (3) of regulation 13.

Duties of resolution professional - duty to manage operations as a going concern and to protect and preserve value of corporate debtor's property - application to Adjudicating Authority under section 19(2) for non-cooperation - failure to conduct corporate insolvency resolution process - recusal from appointment as liquidator - professional misconduct of an insolvency professional - imposition of monetary penalty by Disciplinary CommitteeDuties of resolution professional - duty to manage operations as a going concern and to protect and preserve value of corporate debtor's property - application to Adjudicating Authority under section 19(2) for non-cooperation - Whether Mr. Vasudeo Agarwal failed in his statutory duties as Resolution Professional by not taking over management, not seeking AA's direction under section 19(2) when faced with alleged non-cooperation, and thereby contravened provisions of the Code. - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee found that a resolution professional (RP) has the statutory duty to manage the corporate debtor as a going concern and to protect and preserve the value of its assets. The statute recognises that an RP may face non-cooperation and entitles the RP to apply to the Adjudicating Authority for directions under section 19(2). Mr. Agarwal neither took over management nor made an application for directions; he merely reported non-cooperation in a progress report towards the end of the CIRP. The DC rejected his explanation that he could not trace the corporate debtor, noting prior engagement of an IRP, two CoC meetings, attendance of a director who informed about a change of address, and that Mr. Agarwal did not visit the premises. On these facts the DC concluded that Mr. Agarwal failed in his statutory duties and contravened the provisions of the Code (sections 20 and 23 as identified by the DC). [Paras 4, 5]Found guilty of failing in statutory duties as RP by not taking over management or applying to the AA for directions; contravention of the Code established.Failure to conduct corporate insolvency resolution process - professional misconduct of an insolvency professional - Whether Mr. Agarwal failed to conduct the CIRP (including appointing valuers, preparing information memorandum, issuing invitation for expression of interest, inviting resolution plans) and whether such failure amounted to misconduct. - HELD THAT: - The DC held that an RP exercises the powers akin to the board of directors and is required to conduct the CIRP; while the role is challenging, an IP is expected to meet those challenges. The record showed that except for one CoC meeting and two progress reports Mr. Agarwal did not make serious efforts to perform necessary CIRP tasks such as appointing valuers, preparing information memorandum or issuing EOIs. The DC viewed this as a laid-back attitude and practical abandonment of the CIRP, amounting to contravention of the Code and professional failings. [Paras 4, 5]Found that Mr. Agarwal failed to conduct the CIRP and that his conduct constituted professional misconduct/contravention.Duties of resolution professional - recusal from appointment as liquidator - Whether Mr. Agarwal's request to be recused from appointment as Liquidator without cogent reasons amounted to misconduct. - HELD THAT: - Although Mr. Agarwal sought to be recused as Liquidator, he continued to discharge the responsibilities of the Liquidator until the Adjudicating Authority discharged him. The DC observed that while the statute does not envisage avoidance of responsibility, there is no prohibition on seeking recusal with the AA's approval. On the facts, the DC did not find fault with Mr. Agarwal for seeking recusal. [Paras 4]Request for recusal did not attract adverse finding; no fault found in seeking recusal given continued discharge of duties until discharge by the AA.Imposition of monetary penalty by Disciplinary Committee - professional misconduct of an insolvency professional - What penalty, if any, should be imposed for the contraventions found against Mr. Agarwal? - HELD THAT: - Balancing the seriousness of contraventions with mitigating facts, including the stage of the CIRP when Mr. Agarwal was appointed (about 140 days after commencement) and difficulties explained, the Disciplinary Committee opted for a lenient but substantive sanction. Exercising powers under the Code and relevant regulations, the DC imposed a monetary penalty equal to 100% of the total fee payable to Mr. Agarwal as IRP and RP in the CIRP and directed deposit of the penalty within 30 days, to be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India. [Paras 5, 6]Monetary penalty equal to 100% of fees as IRP and RP imposed; directions issued for deposit and forwarding of order to relevant bodies.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee found that Mr. Vasudeo Agarwal failed in key statutory duties as Resolution Professional and did not adequately conduct the CIRP, while his seeking of recusal as Liquidator did not attract adverse finding; a monetary penalty equal to 100% of the fees payable as IRP and RP was imposed with directions for deposit and administrative communication of the order.

Right to Information - confidentiality of examination question papers - inspection of evaluated answer-sheet and answer key - exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act - public interest and intellectual property considerations in examinationsConfidentiality of examination question papers - exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act - public interest and intellectual property considerations in examinations - Whether the Board could refuse disclosure of the question paper, the candidate's answer sheet and the answer key by relying on confidentiality, FAQs and the alleged intellectual property/public interest harms. - HELD THAT: - The FAA examined the CPIO's refusal based on the Board's FAQ, the asserted confidentiality of question papers, risk of reuse and associated intellectual and financial cost, and precedents relied upon by the parties. The FAA noted that decisions cited by the appellant recognise that post-examination disclosure may be permissible unless an exemption applies; however, the FAA also observed authorities and Commission views distinguishing disclosure where disclosure would compromise examination integrity. The FAA accepted that setting question papers involves intellectual effort and expenditure and that disclosure could lead to repetition/reuse and increased costs for the Board, but nevertheless found that these considerations did not justify absolute non-disclosure. The FAA therefore did not sustain the CPIO's blanket reliance on the FAQs or on confidentiality to deny access, treating the asserted harms as relevant but not determinative of an exemption from disclosure in the facts of this case. [Paras 12, 13]The Board's reliance on FAQs and assertions of confidentiality and intellectual property did not sustain a complete refusal to furnish or permit inspection of the requested examination materials.Right to Information - inspection of evaluated answer-sheet and answer key - Remedy to be granted to the appellant in respect of the RTI requests for the question paper, the candidate's answer sheet and the answer key. - HELD THAT: - Weighing the competing contentions, the FAA directed that, in the interest of justice, the appellant be permitted inspection of an electronic copy of the information sought. The FAA imposed a limited and practical remedy-inspection of electronic copies-rather than absolute disclosure or continued refusal, and directed the CPIO to facilitate such inspection within three weeks at the appellant's convenience. [Paras 14]Inspection of an electronic copy of the requested examination materials to be facilitated by the CPIO within three weeks.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of by directing the CPIO to allow the appellant inspection of electronic copies of the requested question paper, answer sheet and answer key within three weeks; the Board's blanket refusal based on FAQs, confidentiality and cost/IP considerations is not sustained.

Duties of an insolvency professional as interim resolution professional and resolution professional - eligibility of a resolution applicant under section 29A - obligations of the committee of creditors and decision-making in meetings - invitation of expression of interest and requirement of Form G and evaluation matrix - prohibition on recovery during moratorium and distinction between recovery and resolution plan - obligation to submit records of proceedings before the adjudicating authority - collusion and misuse of the corporate insolvency resolution process - regulatory disciplinary power to cancel registration and debar under section 220Duties of an insolvency professional as interim resolution professional and resolution professional - Whether the noticee discharged his statutory duties as IRP/RP in conducting the CIRP of Wig Associates Private Limited with fairness, diligence and independence. - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee found that although the IRP cannot act until he receives the AA's order, the date of commencement remains the date of the order. The DC observed that the RP did not actively manage the affairs of the corporate debtor after commencement of CIRP and delayed essential CIRP tasks, convened meetings only to seek extension, and otherwise failed to run the CIRP or present core documents timely. The DC concluded that such conduct violated the statutory duty to conduct CIRP diligently and to maintain independence, and amounted to failure to assist the AA and to perform obligations under the Code and the IP Regulations. [Paras 4, 5]The noticee failed to discharge the duties of IRP/RP with requisite fairness, diligence and independence.Invitation of expression of interest and requirement of Form G and evaluation matrix - obligations of the committee of creditors and decision-making in meetings - Whether the noticee complied with the mandatory procedures for inviting resolution plans, including CoC approval, publication of Form G and provision of the evaluation matrix. - HELD THAT: - The DC found that the invitation of EoI was issued without proper CoC approval in a meeting, the minutes do not record ratification, and approval by email from the sole financial creditor does not substitute for CoC decision-making as mandated by regulations 18-26. The DC also found that Form G and the evaluation matrix were not handled in accordance with regulation 36A and related provisions: Form G was applicable and should have allowed prescribed time for submission, and the EM was not provided in the mandated timeframe so as to avoid tailoring the EM to select a predetermined resolution applicant. These procedural lapses indicated contraventions of the Code, CIRP Regulations and the IP Regulations' Code of Conduct. [Paras 4]The noticee contravened the mandatory procedure for invitation of EoI, publication of Form G and provision/approval of the evaluation matrix, and did not secure CoC decisions in the prescribed manner.Eligibility of a resolution applicant under section 29A - Whether the resolution plan submitted and approved involved an ineligible resolution applicant contrary to section 29A and whether the noticee wrongly treated such an OTS as a resolution plan. - HELD THAT: - The DC concluded that the noticee facilitated and assisted an ineligible person to submit a plan contrary to section 29A. The noticee's written submissions before the AA that section 29A did not apply were viewed as rejecting express statutory mandate and evidencing collusion. The DC held that the OTS was used as a resolution plan without evidence that feasibility and viability were considered as required under section 30(4), and that this amounted to allowing an ineligible RA to re-assume control in contravention of Parliament's intent and statutory provisions. [Paras 4, 5]The noticee permitted and facilitated an ineligible resolution applicant and allowed an OTS to be treated as a resolution plan in contravention of section 29A and section 30(4).Prohibition on recovery during moratorium and distinction between recovery and resolution plan - Whether the noticee permitted recovery by the financial creditor during moratorium in breach of the Code. - HELD THAT: - The DC examined the allegation that the sole financial creditor recovered amounts during moratorium. It held that while the Code prohibits payments to creditors from the assets of the corporate debtor during moratorium, payments effected pursuant to an approved resolution plan are not per se prohibited. On the material, the DC found no merit in the allegation that the RP permitted unlawful recovery during moratorium. [Paras 4]No contravention found insofar as permitting recovery through a resolution plan is concerned; the allegation of unlawful recovery during moratorium was rejected.Obligation to submit records of proceedings before the adjudicating authority - Whether the noticee failed to submit records of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority to the Board as required. - HELD THAT: - The DC noted that the noticee approached the AA for extension of CIRP and for approval of the resolution plan and that copies of these proceedings were required to be submitted to the Board. The noticee did not submit such records, and this omission was treated as contravention of section 208(2)(d) of the Code and corresponding obligations under the IP Regulations and Code of Conduct. [Paras 4]The noticee failed to submit copies of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority to the Board as required.Collusion and misuse of the corporate insolvency resolution process - Whether there was collusion between the RP, the sole financial creditor and the resolution applicant to misuse CIRP and thereby frustrate objectives of the Code. - HELD THAT: - The DC, on the totality of findings, concluded that the RP, the sole FC and the RA had a meeting of minds to treat a pre-agreed OTS as the effective resolution plan, that the RP delayed and then orchestrated post-facto formalities to create an appearance of compliance, and that the conduct amounted to collusion which abused CIRP to enable the promoters and guarantors to retain control while wiping off creditors' claims. The DC found these acts to be deliberate and in flagrant contravention of multiple statutory and regulatory provisions and the Code of Conduct for insolvency professionals. [Paras 4, 5]The RP colluded with the sole financial creditor and the resolution applicant to misuse the CIRP, vitiating the process and frustrating the Code's objectives.Regulatory disciplinary power to cancel registration and debar under section 220 - What disciplinary action is warranted for the contraventions found against the noticee. - HELD THAT: - Applying the findings of multiple deliberate and collusive contraventions of the Code, CIRP Regulations and the IP Regulations' Code of Conduct, the Disciplinary Committee exercised its powers under section 220(2) of the Code read with regulation 11(7)-(8) of the IP Regulations to cancel the noticee's registration as an insolvency professional and to debar him from seeking fresh registration or providing any service under the Code for a specified period. The DC considered the seriousness of misconduct, loss to creditors and erosion of profession's reputation in imposing the sanction. [Paras 6]The noticee's registration is cancelled and he is debarred from seeking fresh registration or providing services under the Code for ten years, with immediate effect.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee concluded that the noticee committed multiple deliberate and collusive contraventions of the Code, CIRP Regulations and the Code of Conduct; accordingly, his registration as an insolvency professional is cancelled and he is debarred from seeking fresh registration or providing any service under the Code for ten years with immediate effect.

Duty of an insolvency professional to facilitate and not substitute the Committee of Creditors - role of the Committee of Creditors in deciding resolution or liquidation - breach of Code of Conduct by an insolvency professional - permissible exercise of Adjudicating Authority's discretion to replace a resolution professional - regulatory disciplinary action under section 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016Duty of an insolvency professional to facilitate and not substitute the Committee of Creditors - role of the Committee of Creditors in deciding resolution or liquidation - Whether the IP failed to convene and facilitate the Committee of Creditors and thereby substituted the CoC's decision-making function during the CIRP. - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee found that the IP conducted only one CoC meeting (as IRP) and none during his term as RP, did not keep the CoC informed whether any resolution plans had been received, and unilaterally decided that no resolution was possible to preserve value for liquidation. The Committee emphasised that the Code vests the decision on resolution or liquidation with the CoC and that an IP must assist and facilitate the CoC rather than step into its shoes. By depriving the CoC of the opportunity to decide on extension or liquidation and by acting so as to push the corporate debtor to liquidation, the IP failed to protect the interests of the corporate debtor and creditors and encroached upon the CoC's role. [Paras 2, 3]IP contravened the statutory and fiduciary obligations by substituting the CoC and failing to facilitate CoC participation; found in breach of applicable Code provisions and Code of Conduct.Permissible exercise of Adjudicating Authority's discretion to replace a resolution professional - Whether the IP's appointment as RP was irregular because requisite voting threshold was not achieved within the e-voting window. - HELD THAT: - The DC noted that additional votes were received by e-mail after the e-voting window and that the IP disclosed these facts in the progress report. The Adjudicating Authority, having considered the full facts, appointed him as RP. Given the AA's appointment after being apprised of the voting details, the Committee found it inappropriate to allege irregularity in the IP's appointment as RP. [Paras 2]No allegation of irregularity in the appointment as RP is pursued where the AA appointed him having full facts before it.Timeliness in appointment of valuers and preparation of information memorandum - Whether the IP's delay in appointing valuers and in obtaining valuation reports warranted penal action. - HELD THAT: - The DC accepted that there was a short delay (two days) in appointment of valuers in the nascent stage of the insolvency regime when registered valuers' availability and processes were evolving. The IP followed up with valuers and the delay was held to be minor and explicable in the circumstances, not warranting penal action. [Paras 2]Minor delay in appointment and obtaining valuation reports is explicable and not a ground for penalty.Breach of Code of Conduct by an insolvency professional - Whether the IP's conduct amounted to contravention of specific statutory provisions and Code of Conduct clauses. - HELD THAT: - Having found that the IP usurped the CoC's decision-making role, failed to keep the CoC informed about receipt of resolution plans, and effectively worked towards liquidation, the DC held that these actions constituted contraventions of the Code. The Committee recorded that such conduct violated statutory responsibilities under the Code and the professional obligations set out in the IP Regulations and Code of Conduct. [Paras 3]IP found to have contravened provisions of the Code and clauses of the Code of Conduct.Regulatory disciplinary action under section 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - What disciplinary measures are to be imposed for the contraventions found? - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee, relying on its powers under section 220(2) of the Code read with the IP Regulations, imposed a monetary penalty equal to 100% of the total fee payable to the IP as IRP and RP in the CIRP and directed deposit to the Board (to be placed in the Consolidated Fund of India). Additionally, the IP was directed to undergo the pre-registration educational course specified under regulation 5(b) of the IP Regulations from his Insolvency Professional Agency before accepting further assignments under the Code. The Committee noted mitigating factors including the novelty of the regime, the IP's first assignment, and his unconditional apology, but nonetheless imposed the above sanctions. [Paras 3]Monetary penalty equal to total IRP/RP fees imposed and remedial educational direction given; show cause notice disposed of.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee found that the insolvency professional failed to facilitate the Committee of Creditors and substituted its decision-making role, constituting contraventions of the Code and Code of Conduct; minor procedural lapses were excused and no irregularity was imputed to his appointment as RP. The Committee imposed a monetary penalty equal to the total fee payable for the assignment and directed completion of a pre-registration educational course before undertaking further assignments; the show cause notice is disposed of.

Misrepresentation by use of statutory body's name - breach of code of conduct for insolvency professionals - prohibition on use of name of a body corporate in LLP name - suspension of registration and interim bar on new assignmentsMisrepresentation by use of statutory body's name - breach of code of conduct for insolvency professionals - prohibition on use of name of a body corporate in LLP name - Use of the abbreviation 'IBBI' in the LLP name 'IBBI Insolvency Practitioners LLP' constituted misleading representation and contravened the Code and relevant regulations. - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee found it an undisputed fact that 'IBBI' denotes the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and that the LLP was not promoted by the Board; therefore the use of 'IBBI' by a commercial entity without authorisation was impermissible. A registered insolvency professional and qualified chartered accountant is bound by the Code of Conduct not to misrepresent facts or be involved in actions that bring disrepute to the profession. The Committee rejected the respondent's defence that there was no intent to gain material benefit, noting the legal impropriety of adopting the abbreviation of a statutory body and the respondent's delay and incomplete attempts to rectify the name despite being put on notice. The Committee also observed that section 15(2)(b) of the LLP Act prohibits registration of a LLP by a name which is a body corporate, and that the use of 'IBBI' circumvented this prohibition. These findings led to the conclusion that the conduct amounted to contravention of the applicable regulatory provisions and the Code of Conduct. [Paras 4, 5, 6]The Committee held that incorporation and continued display of the name 'IBBI Insolvency Practitioners LLP' misled stakeholders and contravened the Insolvency Professionals Regulations and the Code of Conduct.Suspension of registration and interim bar on new assignments - disciplinary powers under section 220(2) - Appropriate disciplinary directions: interim bar on taking new assignments until the LLP name is removed from MCA records and suspension of the respondent's registration for three months. - HELD THAT: - Relying on its findings of misrepresentation and contravention, and exercising powers under section 220(2) of the Code read with the relevant sub-regulations of regulation 11, the Disciplinary Committee directed two measures. First, an interim prohibition that the respondent shall not take up any new assignment until the name 'IBBI Insolvency Practitioners LLP' is removed from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs' Company/LLP Master Data. Second, a suspension of the respondent's registration as an insolvency professional for three months, with the suspension to commence after the expiry of 30 days from the date of issue of the order. The Committee also directed communication of the order to the professional body and the NCLT Secretary for information. [Paras 6]The Committee imposed an interim bar on new assignments until the LLP name is removed from MCA records and suspended the respondent's insolvency professional registration for three months (to commence after 30 days).Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee concluded that Mr. Kapil Goel's use of 'IBBI' in the LLP name was misleading and in breach of the Code and regulations; it directed an interim prohibition on accepting new assignments until the offending LLP name is removed from MCA records and ordered suspension of his insolvency professional registration for three months, with the suspension to take effect after 30 days.

Insolvency resolution process costs - fees payable to any person acting as a resolution professional - fees of the IRP/RP must be raised and received by the IRP/RP - independence and impartiality of an insolvency professional - integrity and objectivity of an insolvency professional - LLP is a separate legal entity and cannot act as an insolvency professionalInsolvency resolution process costs - fees payable to any person acting as a resolution professional - fees of the IRP/RP must be raised and received by the IRP/RP - LLP is a separate legal entity and cannot act as an insolvency professional - Authorisation of Ernst & Young LLP to raise invoices and receive fees on behalf of the IRP/RP for services rendered in the CIRP of JEKPL Private Limited - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee found that the Fee Acknowledgement Letter dated 17 March 2017 by which the IRP authorised Ernst & Young LLP to raise invoices and receive payments for his fee and out of pocket expenses was contrary to the express scheme of the Code and the CIRP regulations. The Code defines insolvency resolution process costs to include the fees payable to the person acting as resolution professional, and the regulations and their explanation treat 'fees to be paid to the Resolution Professional' as part of such costs. An LLP is a separate legal entity and cannot be enrolled or act as an insolvency professional; therefore invoices for services rendered by the IRP/RP raised and paid to the LLP cannot be treated as part of insolvency resolution process cost. The Committee rejected the contention that the LLP agreement or the LLP Act could permit deviation from the Code, applying the doctrine that the special regime under the Code overrides inconsistent provisions elsewhere. Consequently, the arrangement by which the LLP raised and received fees for the IRP/RP was held to be a violation of the Code and the regulations. [Paras 4]The authorisation to Ernst & Young LLP to raise invoices and receive the IRP/RP's fees was unlawful and contravened the Code and the CIRP regulations.Independence and impartiality of an insolvency professional - integrity and objectivity of an insolvency professional - insolvency professional shall not influence the decision or the work of the committee of creditors - Whether the IRP/RP's direction to settle bills raised by Ernst & Young LLP amounted to influencing the Committee of Creditors or the debtor and thereby breached the Code of Conduct - HELD THAT: - The Committee found that the IRP/RP himself directed settlement of bills raised by Ernst & Young LLP for the services rendered in the CIRP, thereby influencing the decision or functioning of the Committee of Creditors and the debtor. The Code of Conduct requires an insolvency professional to maintain integrity, objectivity, independence and impartiality and specifically prohibits influencing the work of the CoC or debtor to obtain undue gains or preferences. By directing settlement of such bills, the IRP/RP contravened the relevant items of the Code of Conduct identified by the Committee. [Paras 4, 5]The IRP/RP's actions in directing settlement of the LLP's bills breached the Code of Conduct obligations of independence, impartiality and not influencing the CoC or debtor.Fees of the IRP/RP must be raised and received by the IRP/RP - LLP is a separate legal entity and cannot act as an insolvency professional - prohibition on third-party receipt of RP fees - Whether permitting the LLP to raise invoices for the IRP/RP treated the insolvency profession as employment under an entity and contravened section 208 of the Code - HELD THAT: - The Committee held that allowing an LLP to raise invoices for the IRP/RP's professional fee effectively treated the insolvency professional's role as employment under an entity, contrary to the statutory scheme. Section 208 (as applied in the Committee's reasoning) and the Code's framework envisage the IRP/RP being an individual who alone raises and receives the professional fees forming part of insolvency resolution process costs. Consequently, the practice of the LLP raising and receiving fees for the IRP/RP was found to contravene the Code. [Paras 4, 5, 6]Permitting the LLP to raise invoices for the IRP/RP treated the profession as employment under an entity and contravened the Code.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee concluded that Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian violated the Code and related regulations and items of the Code of Conduct by authorising Ernst & Young LLP to raise and receive invoices for his IRP/RP fees and by directing settlement of those bills; taking a lenient view in light of the novelty of the law and subsequent Board circular, the Committee imposed a monetary penalty of one lakh rupees and directed payment within 30 days, and communicated the order to the relevant professional body and the NCLT Registrar.

Information available in public domain - information 'held' or 'under the control of' a public authority - Right to Information Act, 2005 - scope of information accessible - voluntary dissemination excludes RTI applicabilityInformation available in public domain - information 'held' or 'under the control of' a public authority - voluntary dissemination excludes RTI applicability - Information regarding the appellant's marks and the cut off marks already published on the Board's website is not 'held' by the public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act and therefore is not accessible under the Act. - HELD THAT: - The FAA examined the RTI request for marks obtained by the appellant and the cut off marks for the Officer Grade A recruitment (2018) and found that the same information has been placed on the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India's website (www.ibbi.gov.in) and is publicly accessible. Relying on the principle that information voluntarily disseminated in the public domain ceases to be information 'held' or 'under the control of' a public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act, and citing the reasoning in Shri K. Lall v. Shri M.K. Bagri (Order dated April 12, 2007), the FAA concluded that such published information falls outside the scope of information that can be furnished under the RTI Act. Accordingly, no further obligation to furnish the requested material under the RTI Act was found to arise.Appeal dismissed on the ground that the requested information is already in the public domain and therefore not accessible under the RTI Act.Final Conclusion: The First Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal by holding that the marks and cut off marks sought were already available on the Board's website and, being voluntarily disseminated, are not 'held' by the public authority for disclosure under the RTI Act; the appeal was therefore disposed of.

Right to Information - scope of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - information "held" and "under the control" of a public authority - public authority control over third party recordsRight to Information - scope of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - information "held" and "under the control" of a public authority - Whether the copies of the online exam paper with options, the suggested answer key, and the assessee's punch card (keys pressed) are information held or under the control of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and therefore disclosable under the RTI Act. - HELD THAT: - The FAA examined the RTI request and the CPIO's response and found that the specific items sought (online exam paper with options, suggested answer key, and punch card/keys pressed) are not available with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. Reliance was placed on the principle, as explained by the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., that the RTI entitlement extends only to information that is "held" and "under the control" of a public authority; if information is not statutorily accessible or not under the control of the public authority, it is not subject to disclosure under the Act. Applying that principle, since the requested materials are not held by IBBI, they are not disclosable by IBBI under the RTI Act. [Paras 5]The requested information is not held by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India; the appeal is disposed of.Final Conclusion: The First Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal after holding that the online exam paper, suggested answer key and the punch card/keys pressed are not held by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and therefore are not disclosable under the RTI Act.

Term of Interim Resolution Professional - constitution of Committee of Creditors comprising all financial creditors - notice period for Committee of Creditors meetings - acceptance of claims until approval of resolution plan - preparation and provision of information memorandum - appointment of Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors in the first meeting - duties of Interim Resolution Professional to conduct CIRP and act independently - fit and proper person test for insolvency professionals - cancellation of registration under section 220(2)Term of Interim Resolution Professional - duties of Interim Resolution Professional to conduct CIRP and act independently - Continuation of Mr. Rakesh Wadhwa as Interim Resolution Professional beyond the permissible 30-day term. - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee found that CIRP commenced and the IRP was appointed by the adjudicating order dated 30th June, 2017; consequently the maximum permissible 30-day term expired on 30th July, 2017. The Committee rejected the contention that the IRP's term should be reckoned from the date he received a copy of the order. Records show he continued to function after expiry of his term, drafted minutes and filed the resolution plan after that date. Such continuation breached section 16(5) of the Code and clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Conduct applicable to insolvency professionals and undermined statutory limits on the IRP's mandate. [Paras 4, 5]Found to have continued beyond the permissible 30-day term in breach of the Code and Code of Conduct.Notice period for Committee of Creditors meetings - constitution of Committee of Creditors comprising all financial creditors - Holding the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors on less than the statutory notice period and thereby depriving a financial creditor of participation. - HELD THAT: - The first CoC meeting was convened by notice dated 1st August, 2017 for a meeting on 3rd August, 2017, which did not comply with the requirement of giving at least seven days' notice under the CIRP Regulations. There is no evidence that the CoC validly reduced the notice period. The reduced notice, together with the truncated constitution of the CoC, resulted in exclusion of a financial creditor from the process and contravened the statutory regime governing CoC meetings and clauses of the Code of Conduct. [Paras 4, 5]Held that the IRP convened the CoC meeting with inadequate notice in breach of statutory requirements.Appointment of Resolution Professional by the Committee of Creditors in the first meeting - preparation and provision of information memorandum - duties of Interim Resolution Professional to conduct CIRP and act independently - Failure to ensure appointment of a Resolution Professional, preparation of a complete information memorandum, invitation of resolution plans and proper conduct of CIRP, including the IRP's conduct in relation to the corporate debtor and the resolution plan. - HELD THAT: - Sectional duties require the IRP to collect information, collate claims, prepare and provide an information memorandum, invite resolution plans and ensure the CoC appoints an RP or replaces the IRP. The IRP placed an incomplete information memorandum, did not ensure appointment of an RP in the first meeting, and allowed a settlement presented by the corporate debtor to be treated as a 'resolution plan' at the meeting he chaired. By facilitating approval of that plan without following due process, the IRP subverted statutory processes under multiple provisions of the Code and relevant regulations, acted in a manner inconsistent with independence required of the office, and thereby breached the obligations placed on an IRP/RP. [Paras 4, 5]Held that the IRP failed to discharge statutory duties to conduct CIRP properly, subverted the process and did not act independently.Acceptance of claims until approval of resolution plan - constitution of Committee of Creditors comprising all financial creditors - Failure to consider and admit the claim of Bank of India and to include it in the Committee of Creditors. - HELD THAT: - Regulatory provisions permit claims to be submitted up to approval of a resolution plan and require the CoC to comprise all financial creditors. The records showed that BoI's claim existed in the register of charges and was not reflected in the information memorandum; BoI was not included in the CoC and its claim was not admitted by the IRP. The approval of the resolution plan in the first CoC meeting without considering BoI's claim and without including it in the CoC rendered the process fatally incomplete and contrary to the statutory scheme which mandates that all relevant claims be factored into the resolution process. [Paras 4, 5]Held that the IRP did not consider BoI's claim and did not include BoI in the CoC, in violation of the Code and regulations.Fit and proper person test for insolvency professionals - cancellation of registration under section 220(2) - Whether Mr. Wadhwa acted in connivance to subvert the CIRP and thereby ceased to be a fit and proper person, justifying cancellation of his registration. - HELD THAT: - On the cumulative findings - continuing beyond term, convening a CoC meeting with inadequate notice, failing to prepare an information memorandum and to admit or include a material financial creditor, facilitating approval of a settlement as a resolution plan and acting in multiple conflicting capacities - the Committee found that Mr. Wadhwa connived with the applicant-creditor and the corporate debtor to frustrate the CIRP. These infractions indicated a serious breach of integrity and independence expected of an insolvency professional. Considering the objectives of the Code and the responsibilities entrusted to an IP, the Committee concluded that he was not a 'fit and proper' person to continue as an IP and that cancellation of registration under the powers in section 220(2) was warranted. [Paras 4, 5, 6]Found he acted in connivance to subvert the CIRP, was not fit and proper, and his registration was cancelled.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee concluded that Mr. Rakesh Wadhwa contravened multiple provisions of the Code, regulations and the Code of Conduct, acted in connivance to subvert the CIRP, was not a fit and proper person to continue as an insolvency professional, and accordingly cancelled his registration under the powers of section 220(2); the order takes effect after 30 days although he is immediately barred from accepting assignments as IRP, RP or Liquidator.

Information under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - opinion or advice not mandatorily disclosable under RTI - public authority not obliged to create records or provide advisory interpretation - availability of information in public domain excludes it from RTIInformation under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - opinion or advice not mandatorily disclosable under RTI - public authority not obliged to create records or provide advisory interpretation - Whether the appellant's query seeking clarification that 'ten years of experience' includes mere long-standing membership of a professional body without certificate of practice or employment is information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act and therefore disclosable. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the RTI request in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. that a public authority is not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' and that 'opinion' in section 2(f) refers only to material available in records. The authority further relied on CIC precedents reproduced in the order which establish that appellants cannot seek answers phrased as 'why/what/whether' that would compel the public authority to furnish an advisory interpretation, and that the CPIO is not obliged to create new records to answer queries. It was noted that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the subordinate Rules and Regulations are available on the Board's website and once information is voluntarily placed in the public domain it is not 'held' or 'under the control of' the authority for purposes of RTI as held by the CIC in earlier orders. Applying these principles, the FAA concluded that the appellant's request amounted to a call for interpretation/advice on the meaning of 'ten years of experience' rather than an application for existing recorded information; accordingly it did not fall within section 2(f) and was not mandatorily disclosable under the RTI Act. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]The information sought is advisory/opinion in nature and not an 'information' under section 2(f) of the RTI Act; the appeal is disposed of.Final Conclusion: The FAA upheld the CPIO's response: the appellant's request sought an advisory interpretation of the regulatory phrase 'ten years of experience' and therefore did not attract disclosure under the RTI Act; appeal disposed.

Reasonableness of remuneration of Insolvency Professional - Independence of Insolvency Professional and pre-emption of Committee of Creditors' rights - Fit and proper person requirement for registration as Insolvency Professional - Misrepresentation and professional conduct under Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals - Duty to preserve value of the corporate debtor and limits on deployment of IRP/RP resources - Disciplinary powers under section 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy CodeReasonableness of remuneration of Insolvency Professional - Duty to preserve value of the corporate debtor and limits on deployment of IRP/RP resources - The professional fee quoted by the proposed IRP/RP was exorbitant and not a reasonable reflection of the work to be undertaken. - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee (DC) found it an undisputed fact that the term sheet contemplated aggregate professional fees of Rs. 13.75 crore (IRP fee of Rs. 5 crore for the first month and RP fee of Rs. 1.75 crore for five subsequent months). The DC examined the justifications offered by the proposed IP - that the fee covered costs of running the corporate debtor as a going concern, deployment of extensive manpower, and engagement of top tier professionals - and found them inconsistent with the term sheet and untenable in law and practice. The term sheet expressly excluded fees for valuers, advocates, forensic auditors, representation before the Adjudicating Authority and out of pocket expenses, yet the IP subsequently asserted that such items were included in her fee. The DC held that an IRP/RP, while empowered to manage the corporate debtor, is not expected to replace or replicate the entire workforce of the corporate debtor or drain an ailing debtor by recruiting large numbers of personnel; doing so would frustrate preservation of the debtor's value under the Code. The Code and the First Schedule require that remuneration be a reasonable reflection of work necessarily and properly undertaken; comparison with managerial remuneration, fees in similar CIRPs, the IP's own prior fees, and the debtor's outstanding liabilities all demonstrated the proposed fee was unreasonable. [Paras 4, 5]The fee quoted by Ms. Bhavna Sanjay Ruia was held to be exorbitant and not a reasonable reflection of the work, in violation of the Code of Conduct and section 20 of the Code.Independence of Insolvency Professional and pre-emption of Committee of Creditors' rights - Fit and proper person requirement for registration as Insolvency Professional - Agreement with an operational creditor to act as RP and fix RP remuneration before constitution of the Committee of Creditors amounted to an attempt to pre empt the CoC and compromised the IP's independence. - HELD THAT: - The DC noted that the term sheet signed by the IP with the operational creditor purported to lock in her appointment and professional fee as RP prior to constitution of the CoC, who alone are competent to appoint and fix the remuneration of the RP. Such pre agreement with an operational creditor - which has no statutory role in appointment of the RP - was held to denude the competent authority of its rights and indicate possible collusion, thereby compromising the independence required of an IP. The IP's admission that she had planned for a multi month term reinforced the conclusion that the term sheet sought to bind the post CoC process in advance. This conduct undermines the fit and proper person requirement for registration as an IP. [Paras 1, 4, 5]The engagement with the operational creditor to lock in appointment and fees before the CoC was held to compromise independence and violate the Code of Conduct, adversely affecting her status as a fit and proper person.Misrepresentation and professional conduct under Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals - Fit and proper person requirement for registration as Insolvency Professional - The IP made material misrepresentations regarding the scope of her fees, what they included, and comparative computations, amounting to misleading conduct that damaged the profession's reputation. - HELD THAT: - The DC enumerated instances where the IP presented inconsistent and misleading statements: (i) representing post hoc that her fee included items explicitly excluded by the term sheet (such as public announcement costs and fees of certain professionals); (ii) inconsistent positions on which expenses would be borne by the corporate debtor versus her fee; and (iii) incorrect computation and comparison with liquidator fees using inflated asset figures and book values rather than realisable values. These misrepresentations demonstrated lack of honesty and straightforwardness, undermining stakeholder confidence and violating multiple clauses of the Code of Conduct. The DC concluded that such conduct brought disrepute to the profession and reflected on her fitness to continue as an IP. [Paras 4, 5]The IP's misrepresentations and inconsistent statements were held to constitute breaches of the Code of Conduct and to have damaged her standing as a fit and proper person.Disciplinary powers under section 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Appropriate disciplinary action under section 220(2) of the Code and regulation 11(8) of the Regulations was to be imposed. - HELD THAT: - Having found contraventions of multiple clauses of the Code of Conduct and regulation 7(2)(b) (unfitness to continue), and noting that the Adjudicating Authority had intervened to prevent the IP from acting as RP, the DC considered the sanctions available under section 220(2) and (3) of the Code read with regulation 11(8). The DC observed the statutory parameters for penalty, including the formulae where loss or unlawful gain is quantifiable and the cap where it is not. Taking into account that the IP was new to the profession and had not undertaken any process under the Code to date, the DC exercised its discretion to impose a period of suspension to allow the IP to strengthen competency and ethical standards. [Paras 6]The Disciplinary Committee suspended the registration of Ms. Bhavna Sanjay Ruia for one year, the order to take effect after 30 days from its issue.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee concluded that Ms. Bhavna Sanjay Ruia contravened multiple provisions of the Code of Conduct and regulation 7(2)(b) of the Regulations by quoting an exorbitant fee, pre empting the CoC's rights, and making material misrepresentations; accordingly, her registration as an Insolvency Professional was suspended for one year, effective 30 days after issuance of the order.