Mr. Golla's Registration Cancelled for Code Violations, Debarred for 10 Years

The Disciplinary Committee found Mr. Golla's actions in contravention of various provisions of the Code and regulations, leading to the cancellation of his registration as an insolvency professional. He was also debarred for ten years from seeking fresh registration or providing services under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The order was to be immediately enforced following communication to relevant authorities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-supply of documents relied upon by the Board.
2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
3. Board’s suo moto cognizance without a complaint.
4. Issuance of SCN without inspection or investigation.
5. Timeliness and management of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
6. Presentation of Information Memorandum (IM).
7. Issuance of Expression of Interest (EoI) without CoC approval.
8. Publication of Form G.
9. Submission of records to the Board.
10. Conduct of CIRP meetings.
11. Allowing recovery during moratorium.
12. Treating a recovery plan as a resolution plan.
13. Misleading statements for extension of CIRP.
14. Approval of OTS as a resolution plan.
15. Extension of time to facilitate OTS.
16. Application of Section 29A.
17. Compromising independence and collusion.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-supply of Documents:
Mr. Golla claimed he was not provided with documents relied upon by the Board. The Disciplinary Committee (DC) found this claim meritless as the documents were submitted by Mr. Golla himself and no additional documents were relied upon.

2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice (SCN):
Mr. Golla argued the SCN was not in accordance with regulation 11(1). The DC found the SCN complied with the regulation, detailing the alleged facts, violated provisions, proposed actions, and was properly constituted.

3. Board’s Suo Moto Cognizance:
Mr. Golla contended the Board cannot act without a complaint. The DC clarified that the Board can act on reasonable grounds of contravention and does not require a complaint to initiate proceedings.

4. Issuance of SCN without Inspection or Investigation:
Mr. Golla argued the SCN was invalid as it was issued without inspection or investigation. The DC noted that the Board can issue an SCN based on available material without an inspection if sufficient evidence exists.

5. Timeliness and Management of CIRP:
Mr. Golla delayed tasks such as public announcement and appointment of valuers. The DC acknowledged the delay but noted that Mr. Golla did not effectively manage the Corporate Debtor (CD) after the CIRP commenced, violating section 17(1) of the Code.

6. Presentation of Information Memorandum (IM):
Mr. Golla presented the IM at the third CoC meeting, which was delayed. The DC found no lapse as the IM was presented in compliance with the Code and regulations.

7. Issuance of Expression of Interest (EoI):
Mr. Golla issued the EoI without CoC approval. The DC found this action in contravention of the Code, noting the EoI was approved by email rather than in a CoC meeting, violating sections 25(2)(h) and regulations 18 to 26 and 36A.

8. Publication of Form G:
Mr. Golla did not publish Form G, claiming it was not applicable. The DC disagreed, stating the requirement was applicable and Mr. Golla's conduct implied its necessity, thus violating regulation 36A.

9. Submission of Records to the Board:
Mr. Golla failed to submit records of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority (AA) to the Board. The DC found this in contravention of section 208(2)(d) and regulation 7(2)(a) and (h).

10. Conduct of CIRP Meetings:
Mr. Golla convened only one CoC meeting with minimal agenda, failing to actively manage the CIRP. The DC found this in violation of sections 23 and 208(2)(a), and regulation 36A.

11. Allowing Recovery During Moratorium:
The DC found no merit in the allegation that Mr. Golla allowed BoB to recover its loan during moratorium as the resolution plan did not permit recovery before its approval.

12. Treating a Recovery Plan as a Resolution Plan:
Mr. Golla permitted an OTS to be considered as a resolution plan. The DC found this action contrary to the objectives of the Code, violating section 30(4) and regulation 7(2)(a) and (h).

13. Misleading Statements for Extension of CIRP:
Mr. Golla sought an extension by making false statements about seeking investors. The DC found no evidence of such efforts, violating sections 25(2)(h) and 208(2)(a), and regulations 36A and 37.

14. Approval of OTS as a Resolution Plan:
The DC found that the OTS was approved without proper consideration of feasibility and viability, violating sections 25(2)(h), 30, and 208(2)(a), and regulations 36A and 39.

15. Extension of Time to Facilitate OTS:
Mr. Golla sought an extension to facilitate the OTS, compromising his independence. The DC found this in violation of sections 208(2)(a) and regulation 7(2)(h).

16. Application of Section 29A:
Mr. Golla argued that section 29A was not applicable, allowing an ineligible person to submit a resolution plan. The DC found this contrary to the explicit mandate of the Parliament, violating sections 29A and 30(2)(e).

17. Compromising Independence and Collusion:
The DC found Mr. Golla colluded with the RA and CoC, compromising his independence and vitiating the CIRP process, violating sections 208(2)(a) and regulation 7(2)(h).

Conclusion:
The DC concluded that Mr. Golla’s actions caused irreparable damage to the insolvency profession's reputation. He contravened multiple provisions of the Code and regulations, leading to the cancellation of his registration as an insolvency professional and a ten-year debarment from seeking fresh registration or providing services under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This order was to come into immediate effect and was communicated to relevant authorities for enforcement.

---