TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee (DC). Learned Advocate, Mr. Saket Gupta appeared for a personal hearing on 16th November, 2018 on behalf of Ms. Ruia and made oral submission. Mr. Gupta sought permission to file written submission which was allowed. Ms. Ruia made written submission vide her letter dated 22nd November, 2018. Background 2. The Board took note of the following: 2.1 Ms. Bhavna Sanjay Ruia is wife of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ruia. Both are insolvency professionals registered with the Board. 2.2 An inspection of the records of Mr. Ruia revealed that Mr. Ruia, in the capacity interim resolution professional (IRP) of S. N. Plumbing Pvt. Ltd., filed applications for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of 14 corporate debtors (CDs). Ms. Ruia consented to act as IRP for CIRPs of all 14 CDs and contracted for fees as under: Sl. No. Name of Corporate Debtor Fee (Rs.) 1 Akshay Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 4,75,00,000 2 Reliance Industries Ltd. 4,75,00,000 3 Riverview 4,75,00,000 4 Wadhavan Holding Private Ltd. 4,75,00,000 5 Mercury Realty Private Ltd. 4,75,00,000 6 Sanghvi Premises Private Ltd. 1,50,00,000 7 AIGL Properties Ltd. 1,50,00,000 8 Brahmacorp Hotels a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Petition has been filed by the professional namely, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ruia. It appears that the professional who accepted to work as Interim Resolution professional is none other than the wife of the Chartered Accountant who filed this Company Petition. Normally in Section 9 Petitions, this Bench or IBBI will appoint IRP, of course the Petitioner is also entitled to file consent form from IRP, but by seeing the remuneration, we believe it is exorbitant, because the professional fees for Interim Resolution Professional till first CoC meeting is shown as Rs.5,00,00,000 which is so far unheard of in any Company Petition." Alleged Contraventions 3. Based on the above, responses of Ms. Ruia on observations of the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority and other materials available on record, the Board issued the SCN with the following alleged contraventions: 3.1 Ms. Ruia consented to act as IRP of 15 CIRPs for which applications were filed by a professional, who is her husband. In the process, she compromised her independence, integrity and impartiality; 3.2 Ms. Ruia consented to act as IRPs of 15 CIRPs simultaneously, even though she has absolutely no experience whatsoever and no capac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t why Mr. Ruia assigned CIRPs of 15 CDs to one IP, namely, Ms. Ruia, when 2000 IPs were competing for an assignment in the market. It is not a coincidence that 15 assignments from one source landed on her table Ms. Ruia, when she could not have a single assignment otherwise. 15 assignments at one go from one source for an IP having absolutely zero experience establishes that the considerations were something other than merits and there was a deep-rooted conspiracy to bleed the ailing CDs for the benefit of Ruia family. If the conspiracy had materialised, Ms. Ruia would have acted as IRP / RP of CIRPs of 15 CDs and would have earned a professional fee of about Rs.50 crore at one go. When relationship triumphs over merits in professional matters, there is no place for independence, integrity and impartiality. A professional must be not only be impartial, but also appear to be impartial. Does a professional appear impartial if she receives professional assignments for about Rs.50 crore at one go from a CD which is under the custody of her husband. Neither Mr. Ruia found any other professional suitable for any of the 15 CIRPs nor Ms. Ruia could get a single CIRP in her career from any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aken against her in CIRP of Madhucon Projects Ltd. The simple question is if one commits the same offence sixteen times at different points of time, and the offence committed first has been adjudicated, will the subsequent offences go unpunished? The trite law cited by Ms. Ruia requires that one cannot be tried again on the same charges and on the same facts. This is a principle applied for crimes. The DC is not dealing here with a crime and hence the trite law is, strictly speaking, of no avail. Even if this principle is applied, it is still of no avail to Ms. Ruia. The DC is dealing with contraventions in 15 separate CIRPs. Contravention in the CIRP of Madhucon Projects Ltd. is a separate cause of action than the contraventions in the CIRP of Gammon India Ltd. and 14 other CDs. 5.3.2 If Ms. Ruia had slightest regard for the rule of law, she would have immediately withdrawn or modified her consent / terms in respect of Gammon India Ltd. and 14 others, when the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority raised concern about her conduct vide its order dated 22nd November, 2017 in the matter of Shri Shrikrishna Rail Engineers Private Limited vs. Madhucon Projects Limited and referred the matter....