Professional misconduct findings in CIRP upheld where prior disciplinary action had already established contravention and justified regulatory reference.

Professional misconduct findings against a Resolution Professional were examined in the context of the CIRP, including treatment of a resolution applicant as an investor, later attempts to make the applicant a co-applicant, and alleged non-compliance with statutory eligibility requirements for a valid resolution plan. The appellate forum declined interference because disciplinary proceedings had already recorded contravention and imposed penalty, and the foundational order had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. In those circumstances, it held that no contrary view should be taken on the same conduct, and the adverse observations with the reference to the insolvency regulator were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the findings of professional misconduct recorded against the Resolution Professional and the consequential reference to the insolvency regulator called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The impugned findings were based on the Resolution Professional's handling of the CIRP, including the manner in which a resolution applicant was treated as an investor and later sought to be brought in as a co-applicant, the alleged failure to ensure compliance with the statutory eligibility requirements for a valid resolution plan, and the fact that disciplinary proceedings had already culminated in a finding of contravention and imposition of penalty. The appellate forum also noted that the foundational order relied upon had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that it would not be appropriate to take a contrary view on the same conduct once the misconduct had been established in disciplinary proceedings.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the adverse findings or the consequential reference for investigation. The appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge to the remarks and findings against the Resolution Professional was rejected, and the dismissal of the appeal left the impugned findings and consequences undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged professional misconduct is supported by prior binding findings and disciplinary action has already established the contravention, the appellate forum will not interfere with the consequential adverse observations or investigation reference.

---