CIRP cooperation limits: statutory auditors are not treated as management personnel, and disclosure demands require possession or access.

Section 19(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is analysed as a cooperation provision limited to personnel, promoters, and others associated with the corporate debtor's management, and the text states that an external statutory auditor does not ordinarily fall within that class. It further notes that disclosure obligations depend on proof that the person actually possesses or can access the requested records; absent such proof, coercive production directions are not supportable. The note also says that, once CIRP had materially advanced, directions to complete pending audit work and to tender resignation with a no-objection certificate lacked a sufficient statutory basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a former statutory auditor could be compelled under Section 19(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to furnish information and documents for CIRP purposes; (ii) whether such a direction could stand when the auditor denied possession or custody of the material sought; (iii) whether the direction to complete pending audit work and to tender resignation with a no-objection certificate was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether a former statutory auditor could be compelled under Section 19(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to furnish information and documents for CIRP purposes.

Analysis: Section 19(1) requires assistance and cooperation from the personnel of the corporate debtor, its promoters, or other persons associated with its management. The provision is directed to assistance needed for managing the corporate debtor as a going concern and for protecting its assets. A statutory auditor is an external professional whose role is to audit and report on the company's financial position and is not ordinarily a person associated with the management of the corporate debtor. The scope of Section 19(1) cannot be expanded to treat such an auditor as part of the management merely because the RP sought information from him.

Conclusion: The auditor could not, on the facts, be compelled under Section 19(1) to furnish the information as if he were a person associated with the management.

Issue (ii): whether such a direction could stand when the auditor denied possession or custody of the material sought.

Analysis: The obligation to share information presupposes that the person from whom disclosure is sought actually possesses or has access to the material. The record indicated that the auditor had communicated that the relevant records were with the corporate debtor and that documents had already been acknowledged by the RP's auditor. In the absence of proof that the appellant still held the sought material, no effective coercive direction could be issued to compel production of documents not shown to be in his custody.

Conclusion: The direction to produce documents and information could not be sustained without proof of possession or access.

Issue (iii): whether the direction to complete pending audit work and to tender resignation with a no-objection certificate was sustainable.

Analysis: The insolvency process had already progressed substantially, with the information memorandum prepared, plans received, and a plan approved by the CoC. In that setting, the statutory basis for compelling further audit action or insisting upon resignation with a no-objection certificate was not made out. The impugned order also proceeded without adequately examining the auditor's role, the availability of the information with him, or the acknowledgment of receipt by the RP's auditor.

Conclusion: The further directions to complete the audit and to resign with a no-objection certificate were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded, leaving no surviving direction against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 19(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 authorises directions only to persons associated with the management of the corporate debtor, and only in respect of information actually within their possession or access and necessary for CIRP administration as a going concern.

---