Petitioner Upheld in Insolvency Board Penalty Case, No Misconduct Found

The court upheld the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board's order penalizing the petitioner for a lapse in conducting the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Despite challenges faced due to lockdown restrictions, the court found no misconduct by the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner's obligation to seek an extension of the C.I.R.P period was subject to the Committee of Creditors' approval. As there was no evidence of negligence, the court directed the petitioner to pay the imposed penalty of Rs.2 lakhs and granted ad-interim relief until the next hearing.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board regarding lapse in conduct of C.I.R.P, Interpretation of Sec.12 of I.B.C regarding extension of C.I.R.P period, Allegations against the petitioner, Impugned order imposing penalty and probation period.

Analysis:

1. The petition challenges the order of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board concerning a lapse in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (C.I.R.P) conducted by the petitioner. The Board found the petitioner to have committed a lapse in the matter of Brain Master's Classes Private Limited for not filing a necessary application for approving the resolution plan or liquidation within the stipulated time frame of 180 days from the admission of the application, as mandated by Sec.12 of the I.B.C.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that as per Sec.12(2) of the I.B.C, the responsibility of applying for an extension of the C.I.R.P period lies with the resolution professional only if instructed by a resolution passed by the Committee of Creditors (C.O.C) with a 66% majority. The counsel contended that the petitioner was not obligated to call for a C.O.C meeting unless authorized by the C.O.C as per the statutory provisions.

3. The order reflects that the petitioner had intentions to conduct the C.O.C meeting but faced challenges due to lockdown restrictions, leading to delays. The adjudicating authority noted that the C.O.C did not take efficient measures to complete the C.I.R.P, and there were no allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. Despite these findings, the impugned order penalized the petitioner with a fine of Rs.2 lakhs and imposed a probation period of four months.

4. Upon perusal of Sec.12(2) of the I.B.C and the observations of the adjudicating authority, it appears that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, who was expected to adhere to the statutory provisions. The court, prima facie, found no grounds to attribute negligence to the petitioner based on the order's contents and the legal framework.

5. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount of Rs.2 lakhs as per the impugned order before a specified date and issued notice to the respondents for further proceedings. Ad-interim relief was granted until the next hearing date, allowing direct service in the matter.

---