Conflict disclosure and post-conviction disqualification can bar a professional from continuing to represent a liquidator.

A professional assisting a liquidator must disclose any pecuniary or personal relationship with stakeholders or the corporate debtor under Regulation 7(3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, and non-disclosure of a conflict can disqualify continued representation. Where the professional is subsequently suspended from practice and convicted, the same disqualification principle reinforces that continuance as counsel in judicial proceedings is impermissible. The stated effect is that representation of the liquidator may be restrained when both the disclosure obligation is breached and later supervening incapacity arises.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a counsel/professional who had a conflicting interest and had not made the disclosure required under Regulation 7(3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 could continue to represent the liquidator. (ii) Whether the impugned order restraining such representation was justified in view of the counsel's subsequent suspension from practice and conviction.

Issue (i): Whether a counsel/professional who had a conflicting interest and had not made the disclosure required under Regulation 7(3) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 could continue to represent the liquidator.

Analysis: Regulation 7(1) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 permits appointment of a professional to assist the liquidator, but Regulation 7(3) obliges disclosure of any pecuniary or personal relationship with stakeholders or the corporate debtor as soon as the professional becomes aware of it. The undisputed facts showed non-disclosure of the relevant relationship and the existence of a conflict affecting professional competence to continue in the role.

Conclusion: The professional could not validly continue to represent the liquidator.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order restraining such representation was justified in view of the counsel's subsequent suspension from practice and conviction.

Analysis: Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1971 reflects the legislative policy that conviction disqualifies a person from enrolment as an advocate, and the same principle was applied to hold that continuance in practice after conviction cannot be permitted. Since the counsel's licence had been suspended and he had been judicially found guilty, he was disentitled to act as a professional in judicial proceedings. The order under challenge was therefore supported both by the disclosure default under the liquidation regulations and by the later supervening disqualification.

Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld and the restraint on representation was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the ground that the concerned professional was disqualified from continuing as counsel for the liquidator, both because of non-disclosure of conflict under the liquidation regulations and because of his suspension and conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: A professional assisting a liquidator must make the mandatory disclosure of any pecuniary or personal relationship under the liquidation regulations, and where the professional is later suspended or convicted, continuance in representation is impermissible.

---