TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ency professional (IP) registered with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI/Board) with registration No. IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00248/2017-2018/10733. 2. This SCN has traversed on a tortuous path as under: 2.1 On considering the consent of Mr. Rishi Prakash Vats, IP to act as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of M/s. Rana Global Limited, the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority (AA), vide order dated 23rd March, 2018, appointed Mr. Rishi Kumar Vats as the IRP of the said CIRP. In the said order, the AA directed the IRP to file his report within the statutory period and directed the matter to come up on 25th April, 2018. 2.2 When the matter came up on 26th April, 2018 (instead of 25th April, 2018), the AA found the attitude of the IRP inexplicable. In its order dated 26th April, 2018, the AA made the following observation and directions: ".... The IRP has taken no steps till date merely because of a typographical error in his name as Shri Rishi Prakash Vats has been typed out as Shri Rishi Kumar Vats. However, it is not denied that address namely, Suit no. 1, 19, Park Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 or his R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....show cause notice also deserves to be recalled. Copy of this order be communicated by the Bench Officer to IBBI." 2.7 Mr. Vats didn't appear for the personal hearing before the DC on 26th October, 2018. Nor was there any communication from him. He did not even bring the order dated 16th October, 2018 of the AA, which was passed in disposal of his application, to the notice of the Board / DC. The Board, however, noticed the order on the website of the AA and placed the same before the DC at the hearing on 26th October, 2018. It informed the DC that the SCN indicates contraventions beyond the observations of the AA and the Board did not have an opportunity to explain the matter to the AA when the application of Mr. Vats was considered. In view of the observations of the AA, the DC, vide its order dated 29th October, 2018, returned the SCN to the Board for further appropriate action. 2.8 The Board filed an application to the AA seeking reconsideration of the orders dated 17th September, 2018 and 16th October, 2018, with a prayer that the SCN be allowed to be disposed of on merits in accordance with the law. After hearing the parties, the AA, vide order dated 5th February, 2019, ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period of six months. It is unfortunate that it has taken about a year for disposal of this instant SCN. The SCN, which was issued on 8th September, 2018, is getting disposed of only today, that is, 21st August, 2019. The delay is mostly because the matter moved thrice to the AA, once to the Appellate Authority and twice to the DC. Nevertheless, the exemplary speed of all concerned in disposal of the matter needs to be appreciated: (a) The cause of action arose with issue of the SCN by the Board on 8th September, 2018. Thereafter, Mr. Vats moved an application, which was considered and disposed of by the AA vide order dated 17th September, 2018. It took only nine days from the cause of action till disposal of the matter by the AA. (b) Another cause of action arose with the issue of letter dated 9th October, 2018 by the Board offering Mr. Vats an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, Mr. Vats moved an application, which was considered and disposed of by the AA vide order dated 16th October, 2018. It took only seven days from the cause of action till disposal of the matter by the AA. (c) The DC met on 26th October, 2018 to hear Mr. Vats. After considering the order d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essionals, insolvency professional agencies and information utilities and other institutions. It empowers the Board to monitor performance of IPs and initiate disciplinary proceeding against an IP in case of misdemeanour by issuing a show cause notice and disposing of the same by a reasoned order. 4.3 Mr. Vats filed two applications with the AA but did not array the Board as a party. Both the applications were disposed of ex-parte without the knowledge of the Board even though the subject of both the applications was the SCN issued by the Board. This does not prove the bonafide of Mr. Vats. However, the Board arrayed Mr. Vats as a party in its application before the AA and in the appeal before the Appellate Authority. Both the AA and the Appellate Authority disposed of the application / appeal, after considering the reply of Mr. Vats and hearing the parties. 4.4 Mr. Vats was not aggrieved by the order dated 26th April, 2018 of the AA that found his attitude inexplicable. He found the attitude explicable only after the Board issued the SCN and sought expunction of the finding. This indicates his scant regard for the order of the AA. 4.5 Mr. Vats did not appear before the DC on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said mail on the ground that it has been deleted from his email account due to some technical issue. The Board in turn provided evidence in the form of WhatsApp messages whereby the financial creditor sent the said order on 5th April, 2018 and interaction between Mr. Vats and the financial creditor regarding the order. The Board, therefore, stated that Mr. Vats made false submission that he received the order on 16th April, 2018 to mislead the Board while he received it on 5th April, 2018 and he did not preserve crucial records. As Mr. Vats did not contest either of these allegations, both the allegations stand established. He has, therefore, contravened regulation 7(2)(a) and (h) of the IBBI (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016 read with clause 1, 2, 12, 14, 16 and 19 of the Code of Conduct thereof. 5.2 Mr. Vats has responded that the order dated 23rd March, 2018 of the AA had confirmed the appointment of Mr. Rishi 'Kumar' Vats instead of Mr. Rishi 'Prakash' Vats, which is his name. He requested the financial creditor to get the name corrected and till correction was made, he did not take any steps as IRP. It is difficult to appreciate such a stance by an IP, who had giv....