Mr. Amit Prakash Gupta vs Satyendra Prasad Khorania & Anr.

Per: Ms. Reeta Kohli, Judicial Member

This Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC'/ 'Code') R/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 by the Suspended Board of M/s U.N. Automobile Private Limited ('Corporate Debtor') namely Mr. Amit Prakash Gupta ('Applicant') against the Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP'/ 'Non-Applicant No. 1'/ 'Respondent No. 1') namely Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania and Bank of Baroda ('Non-Applicant No. 2'/ 'Respondent No. 2'/ 'Bank') for seeking following prayers:-

The Applicant has filed the present IA alleging the following set of facts:

The Applicant is the erstwhile/suspended director of the CD who has approached this Adjudicating Authority being aggrieved by the conduct of the Non-Applicant No.1, inter alia, whereby the Non-Applicant No.1, i.e. the IRP of the CD is conducting the CIRP in a biased and mechanical fashion; and without performing due diligence to ascertain the veracity of claims submitted by the claimants of the CD including Non-Applicant No.2. Resultantly, the Non-Applicant No. 1 has accepted/admitted the inflated claims submitted by the claimants qua the CD, including Non-Applicant No.2 which is not only unethical, highly prejudicial to the interests of the CD; but also, is contrary to the provisions of the IBC, 2016 and the rules made thereunder. The Applicant has also filed a separate application seeking rejection/verification of claims, which duly manifests the unbiased conduct of Non-Applicant No.1. In the light of abovementioned facts and circumstances, the Applicant, being the suspended/erstwhile director of the CD is constrained to file the instant application citing lack of transparency, conflict of interest, absolute bias of Non-Applicant No.1 towards the Non-Applicant No.2, inter alia, other acts undertaken by the Non-Applicant No.1, w.r.t. the CIRP of the CD.

The CIRP of the CD was initiated vide order dated 28.08.2024 in pursuance to the same, the Non-Applicant No. 1 issued a public announcement dated 30.08.2024 as per Section 15 of the IBC, 2016 r/w Rule 6 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons), Regulations 2016 and called upon the creditors to submit their claims with proof. The last date for submission of claims was decided to be 12.09.2024.

The Non-Applicant No.1, sent an email dated 28.09.2024, whereby it was informed to the Applicant that the first meeting of Committee of Creditors ('CoC') has been conducted on 27.09.2024 and the minutes of the First COC meeting was also attached with the aforesaid email. It is imperative to mention that Item/Agenda No. 7 of the minutes of the aforesaid meeting of CoC, takes note of disclosure made by Non-Applicant No. 1 under Regulation 7(2)(h) of IBBI (Insolvency Professionals), Regulations, 2016. A bare perusal of the said agenda reveals that the Non-Applicant No. 1 has reproduced Clause 8 and 8A of the Code of Conduct and disclosed that he is an Insolvency Professional (IP) empanelled with Non-Applicant No.2, i.e. Bank of Baroda. The Non- Applicant No.2, being the sole CoC member, took note of the same.

The Applicant sent an Email dated 07.11.2024 to the Non-Applicant No. 1, whereby the receipt of minutes of the first meeting was duly acknowledged and informed that there is a high possibility that the claimants of the CD would submit highly inflated claims the said information was shared, to assist the Non-Applicant No.1 for ascertaining the veracity of the claims submitted to him.

Despite sending the aforesaid email dated 07.11.2024, the Non-Applicant No.1 had paid no heed to enquire into the reasons for such apprehensions of the Applicant. Upon enquiry, it came to the knowledge of the Applicant that the Non-Applicant No.2 has submitted a highly inflated and exaggerated claim of Rs. 250,96,59,650/- (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty Crores Ninety-Six Lakh Fifty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Only) and the Non-Applicant No. 1 without conducting any due diligence as mandated by the Code has admitted the claim of the Non-Applicant No. 2.

The Applicant vide Email dated 26.11.2024 again informed the Non-Applicant No.1 that the claim of Rs. 250.09 Crores submitted by Non-Applicant No.2 has been wrongfully admitted by Non-Applicant No.1 as the said amount is highly inflated and in abject derogation of the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Ld. DRT, Jaipur. In the said order the Ld. DRT adjudicated upon the quantum at Rs. 26.07 Crore only.

The Non-Applicant No.1, instead of examining the veracity of the admitted claim, blamed the Applicant for not co-operating with the Non-Applicant No.1 and not providing any documents to him and further submitted that as per Regulation 13(2) of the IBBI Regulations the Applicant is not entitled to get the claim documents as sought.

Despite, the request made by the Applicant to take into consideration the order of Ld. DRT wherein the quantum was decided at Rs. 26.07 Crore Only which was furnished by the Applicant, the Non-Applicant No. 1 neither took consideration of the said order nor held discussion in the CoC minutes.

It is apposite to mention that the Applicant has attended the 3^rd CoC meeting with the sole purpose to assist the Non-Applicant No.1 however neither any inputs were sought nor any heed was paid to the Applicant in the said CoC meeting.

In addition to that it is submitted that the Non-Applicant No.1, apart from being an Insolvency Professional, is also a director of Enforcement Affiliates Private Limited, having CIN No. U74999RJ2016PTC054902 and registered with Registrar of Companies (ROC), Jaipur. The registered address of the aforesaid company is Office No. 402, Ok Plus, DP Metro New Sanganer road, Jaipur, (Raj.)-302019 and the registered email ID is [email protected]. A bare perusal of the master data makes it apparent that the Non-Applicant No.1 is the Promoter of Enforcement Affiliates Pvt. Ltd. and is the director of the same since its incorporation w.e.f. 11.05.2016.

The aforesaid entity, i.e. Enforcement Affiliates Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of providing recovery and security enforcement services to various Banks and other financial institutions. It is apposite to mention that the aforesaid company is also empanelled by Non-Applicant No.2, i.e. Bank of Baroda, as a recovery agent for various zones, throughout the country.

A bare perusal of the abovementioned facts makes it apparent that the Non-Applicant No.1 is a promoter/director in an entity, i.e. Enforcement Affiliates Pvt. Ltd., which is directly involved with and empanelled as a recovery agent by Non-Applicant No.2. As such, apart from being the RP of the CD, the Non-Applicant No.1 is entrusted with recovery of dues for Non-Applicant No.2. It is pertinent to mention that the email address of Non-Applicant No.1 is same as that of the registered email address of Enforcement Affiliates Pvt. Ltd. and the registered office of Enforcement Affiliates Pvt. Ltd. is the same place where the Non-Applicant No.1 is working as an Insolvency Professional and holding meetings of CoC of the Corporate Debtor.

The aforesaid factum has been deliberately concealed by the Non-Applicant No.1 and the Non-Applicant No. 2 has also not disclosed this fact in Part III of the captioned petition, whereby name of Non-Applicant No.1 has been proposed as the IRP. Non-Applicant No.1 has not even disclosed such relation/engagement/empanelment with the Non-Applicant No.2, in his written communication and consent in Form A dated 17.10.2022 which is Annexure-13 to the captioned petition. Additionally, the Non-Applicant No.1, in the first meeting of CoC held on 27.09.2024 has given partial disclosure by merely stating that he is empanelled IP of Non-Applicant No. 2. However, the factum of his directorship in Enforcement Affiliates Pvt. Ltd. and it being a recovery agent for Non-Applicant No.2 has been deliberately concealed.

Additionally, it is submitted that the Non-Applicants are hand-in-glove with each other and misusing the provisions of the IBC, 2016 as a recovery tool, whereby the same counsel is being engaged by the Non-Applicant No.1 Resolution Professional and Non-Applicant No.2 Bank. It is apposite to mention that Non-Applicant No.1 has engaged the same counsel, who was representing the Non-Applicant No.2 Bank, before this Adjudicating Authority at the time of admission of the captioned petition vide order dated 28.08.2024 and continues to represent the Non-Applicant No.2 Bank in other forums, such as the Hon'ble High Court and Ld. DRT, Jaipur Bench. As such, it is duly apparent that there is no independence whatsoever between Non-Applicant No.1 and Non-Applicant No.2, which has compromised and vitiated the integrity of the CIRP. The Non-Applicant No.1 and Non-Applicant No.2 are acting like a single entity, whereby same counsels are being engaged by the Non-Applicants, which is against the tenets of independence, ethics and fair play.

The First Schedule of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 encapsulates the Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals. The objective for enactment of Code of Conduct is that the Insolvency Professionals, carry out their duties with transparency and fairness, so as to ensure that duties are being performed impartially and independent or any external influences so that their/its decisions are made without presence of any bias, conflict of interest, coercion and/or undue influence from any party, whether or not directly or indirectly connected with the insolvency proceedings or not. Regulation 7(2)(h) of the IP regulations 2016 states that the registration of an IP is subject to the condition that he shall abide by the Code of Conduct specified in the First Schedule. As such, every Insolvency Professional, including Non-Applicant No.1 is mandated under law to follow the Code of Conduct.

The code of conduct not only mandates that in the event of conflict of interest the Insolvency Professional should refrain from undertaking such assignment, but also places a positive obligation of disclosure of its relationship with any of the stakeholders/participants of CIRP, including financial creditors, members of CoC, management of Corporate Debtor etc. Moreover, an Insolvency Professional is also obligated not to conceal any material information to mislead the Board, Adjudicating Authority or any other stakeholder of CIRP.

Existence of conflict of interest and its non-disclosure not only runs contrary to the Code of Conduct as mentioned in the First Schedule of IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 but is also in contravention to rationale behind enacting Regulation 3 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. Regulation 3(3) of the aforesaid regulation is being reproduced hereunder:

As such, the rationale behind enacting the Code of Conduct and Regulation 3(3) of the IBBI Regulations, 2016 is to ensure that the IRP/RP performs its obligations independently and impartially, free from any oblique motives and extraneous considerations.

It is a settled law that even if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in the functioning of an IRP/RP, then such IRP/RP warrants removal and is to be replaced by an independent IRP. However, without prejudice to the above, the present Application has been filed not only on mere apprehension of bias. The bias and impartiality on the part of the Non-Applicant No.1 is duly manifested and writ large by its conduct, whereby inflated claim of approximately Rs. 250 Crores, submitted by Non-Applicant No.2 has been mechanically admitted by Non-Applicant No.1, without taking any measures whatsoever to ascertain the veracity of such amount.

Therefore, in the light of abovementioned circumstances, it is requested before this Adjudicating Authority that the Non-Applicant No.1 be removed as the Resolution Professional of the CD, as apart from being an apparent conflict of interest, the Non-Applicant No.1 is acting as a recovery agent of Non-Applicant No.2 under the cloak of being a Resolution Professional under IBC, 2016. The aforesaid conduct is not only detrimental to the CD and its other stakeholders but also vitiates the reasons and object of IBC, 2016 and rules made thereunder. It is reiterated that even though replacement of an IRP/RP can be done on an apprehension of bias and partiality. However, in the present case, the bias and apprehension are not merely theoretical, but also manifested by the conduct of Non-Applicant No.1, whereby claims of Non-Applicant No.2 is being mechanically accepted. Thus, it is pellucid, that non-applicants are collusively performing recovery of dues, under the garb of resolution of CD, which is impermissible under law and warrants strict action by this Adjudicating Authority.

The Respondent No. 1 filed its reply, vide Dairy No. 56/2025 dated 07.01.2025 wherein stated the following:

In the present matter Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has processed the claims based on documents/information furnished to him by the Financial Creditor. It is also pertinent to mention that the Applicant is levelling false and frivolous allegations against the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional to stall the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred as "CIRP") of the Corporate Debtor going on under the supervision of this Adjudicating Authority.

The Applicant, Suspended Director was informed vide e-mail dated 21.09.2024 that the 1st Meeting of Committee of Creditors was scheduled on 27.09.2024. It is pertinent to mention that the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional vide Agenda No. 4 of the minutes of the meeting has informed about the claims received in the matter and after verifying the same the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has provisionally admitted the claims of Financial Creditor Bank of Baroda. It is also pertinent to mention that the details of the claim are available on the website of IBBI. It is also pertinent to mention the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has acted as per rules and guidelines formulated by the IBBI.

It is submitted that even after multiple reminders from Non- Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional the Applicant Suspended Director has not furnished any sort of information requested by the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional. The Applicant Suspended Director has till date failed to provide the Books of Account of Corporate Debtor to the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional, the assets of the Corporate Debtor has also not been handed over to the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional. Resultantly, the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional was forced to file an application under section 19(2) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, the Applicant Suspended Director has till date not provided all the required information, Books of Accounts and has not handed over the assets Corporate Debtor to the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional. As a result of the same Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional was forced to file an application before this Adjudicating Authority seeking directions to be given to the local police authorities to ensure the taking of peaceful possession of the properties of the Corporate Debtor by the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional. The Applicant Suspended Director himself chose not to attend the 1^st and 2^nd meeting of Committee of Creditors during which the claims of creditors were discussed and examined. However, in the 3^rd meeting of Committee of Creditors dated 26.11.2024 the Applicant Suspended Director was provided with the list of creditors. This fact is also minimized in the minutes of 3^rd Meeting of Committee of Creditors. It is also pertinent to mention that the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has admitted the claims of Financial Creditor Bank of Baroda on the basis of documents and information provided to the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional. Moreover, the provisionally admitted claim of the Respondent No. 2 could not be verified from the Books of Accounts of Corporate Debtor since the Applicant Suspended Director has intentionally not shared the Books of Accounts and other information pertaining to the Corporate Debtor with the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional.

It is pertinent to mention that the proceeding before Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur have no significance in the current proceedings. Moreover, the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur has already been stayed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench vide its order dated 02.06.2023.

The Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has always discharged his duty as IRP/RP in an unbiased dignified manner while following all the provisions, rules and regulations as mandated by law. The Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has an unblemished track record and has always performed his duty to the best of his abilities and has maintained highest professional standards while discharging his duties. It is evident from the disclosure made by the Resolution Professional which is also minitized in the minutes of the 1^st meeting of Committee of Creditors that the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional is an insolvency professional empanelled with Financial Creditor Bank of Baroda. It is also stated that the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional is associated with various banks and has undertaken various recovery/insolvency/liquidation assignments from various banks. Moreover, the Resolution Professional is duty bound to inform the Committee of Creditors regarding his affiliation or past affiliation with any of the stakeholders (if any). It is pertinent to mention that the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has made full disclosure regarding his empanelment with Financial Creditor Bank of Baroda and the members of Committee of Creditors are fully aware of the assignments undertaken by the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional and his affiliation with various banks. It is also pertinent to mention that professional affiliation of a professional is not a bar for appointment of a professional except as provided in Regulation 27 of the Insolvency Regulation Process for Corporate Person's Regulation, 2016. It is also pertinent to mention that the Applicant Suspended Director has himself acted against the mandate of law by not cooperating with the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional and has intentionally failed to provide the required information, Books of Account of Corporate Debtor and has intentionally not handed over the assets of the Corporate Debtor to the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional. The present application by the Applicant Suspended Director is an attempt by the Applicant Suspended Director to create undue pressure on the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors to restrict him from discharging his duties provided under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has followed all the Regulations and there is no conflict of interest. It is also pertinent to mention that the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has been working in an unbiased manner as per the mandate of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and applicable Rules/Regulations. It is pertinent to mention that while examining the veracity of claims the Resolution Professional is duty bound to examine the claims submitted by the claimants diligently on the basis of the documents/information made available to the Resolution Professional. In the present matter Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has processed the claims on the basis of documents/information furnished to him. It is also pertinent to mention that the Applicant Suspended Director is levelling false and frivolous allegations against the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional to stall the CIRP proceedings of the Corporate Debtor.

The answering Respondent has filed its additional affidavit wherein it is stated that as per the Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals under Regulation 7(2)(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 "An insolvency professional must disclose the details of any conflict of interests to the stakeholders, whenever he comes across such conflict of interest during an assignment". In lieu of the said Regulation the RP has made full disclosure regarding its empanelment with the Financial Creditor Bank of Baroda before the initiation of CIRP and during the first meeting of Committee of Creditors.

Additionally, the Applicant Suspended Director has alleged that Non-Applicant No. 1 and Non-Applicant No. 2 are acting like a single entity by engaging same counsel against the tenets of independence, ethics and fair play. In this context it is needless to remind that the objective of the Code is successful resolution of the Corporate Debtor and in pursuance of this objective the Non-Applicant No.1 Resolution Professional has worked very hard which has resulted in submission of Resolution Plan by seven Resolution Applicants for successful resolution of the Corporate Debtor. In pursuance to that the Non-Applicant No.1 Resolution Professional has engaged other professionals also as provided under Regulation 27 of the IBBI (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Debtor) Regulation, 2016.

In the present matter the Non-Applicant No.1 Resolution Professional has never acted as a recovery agent of the Bank in the matter of U.N. Automotive Private Limited. Moreover, after the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional got himself registered as an Insolvency Professional, he has not undertaken any assignment as an Advocate in the Securitization proceedings of the

The Respondent No. 1 has also filed its Written Submissions vide Diary No. 1050/2025 dated 14.05.2025, wherein stated the following:

The first allegation in the Application is that the RP is conducting the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor as a recovery proceeding. In this regard, attention of this Adjudicating Authority is invited to the fact that after issuance of Form No. G by the RP as many as seven Resolution Plans have been received by the RP as the same were considered by the Committee of Creditors and the Resolution Plans have been put to voting. Therefore, the allegation is without any basis and only to derail the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor after the Hon’ble NCLAT refused to interfere with the admission of CIRP order.

The next allegation by the Applicant Suspended Director is that the RP has not made proper disclosure to the COC under Regulation 7(2)(h) of IBBI (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016. The points-wise allegations are responded hereunder: -

A bare perusal of the aforesaid clause clearly shows that the disclosure by an Insolvency Professional is mandatory if he or his Insolvency Professional Entity has any relation with the Corporate Person/Debtor. Moreover, the RP is not a partner/director of any IPE.

From the above it is clear that the time limit prescribed for any assignment taken is 3 years prior to the initiation of the CIRP. The CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was initiated on 28.08.2024. It is submitted that no assignment whatsoever of Corporate Debtor was taken by the RP, three years preceding the CIRP initiation date therefore, the said clause is not at all applicable.

The Respondent No. 2 has filed its reply vide Diary No. 177/2025 dated 22.01.2025 wherein stated the following:

We have perused the Application, Replies, Additional Affidavits, and Written Submissions, along with the documents annexed therewith.

The case of the Applicant in a nutshell is that the IRP/RP has conducted the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor in a biased, unfair, and motivated manner. It has been contended that the IRP/RP had a professional relationship with Bank of Baroda, the sole CoC Member and the same has not been disclosed by the IRP/RP since the very beginning of the CIRP proceedings. Thus, it has been urged that the IRP/RP has failed to adhere to the model conduct as prescribed for a professional under the Code.

On the other hand, the IRP/RP has contended that he has conducted the CIRP proceedings in an utmost transparent manner and has complied with all the provisions of the Code and has made all the required disclosures. Moreover, it was urged that the Suspended Board of the Corporate Debtor has failed to extend relevant assistance to the IRP/RP in discharging his functions as provided under the Code. Non-Applicant No. 2, Bank of Baroda, has seconded the contentions made by the Resolution Professional and has prayed for dismissal of the instant Application.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the primary issue for our consideration is Whether the Non-Applicant No. 1/Interim Resolution Professional namely, Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania, has performed its duties in a manner envisaged under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016?'

For adjudicating upon the aforementioned issue, it is incumbent to refer to relevant provisions of the Code and the Regulations thereunder. For the sake of convenience, the same are reproduced hereunder: -

A bare perusal of the aforementioned Provisions and Regulations transpires that the RP has a crucial role and responsibilities during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the pivotal importance of adherence to the Code of Conduct.

A Resolution Professional is appointed by an Adjudicating Authority, who is responsible to govern the affairs of the whole Insolvency and Bankruptcy procedure. Resolution Professional is also known as Insolvency Professional who regulates Insolvency Resolution Process, which also include Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’) who take requisite steps to revive the Corporate Debtor.

The Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals under the Code read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, provides that in the performance of his/her functions, a professional member shall inter alia; be independent and impartial with the highest standards of professional competence and professional ethics.

An Insolvency Professional (‘IP’) is a key pillar of the Insolvency Proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). He/she plays different roles, namely, Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’) or Resolution Professional (‘RP’) in a CIRP, Liquidator in liquidation process, RP in individual insolvency processes and Bankruptcy Trustee in bankruptcy proceedings. He/she is the key driver of CIRP - IRP in the preliminary days of CIRP and then as RP till its completion. As an IRP/RP in a CIRP, he/she is vested with an array of statutory and legal duties and powers. He/she exercises the powers of the board of directors of the Corporate Debtor and manages its affairs. He/she runs the operations of the Corporate Debtor as going concern, protects and preserves the value of assets of the Corporate Debtor and ensures compliances with all the laws applicable to the Corporate Debtor and the CIRP whenever possible. He/she conducts the entire resolution process and assists the stakeholders to find out the best Resolution Plan. He/she is the driving force and the nerve-centre in the Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ensures that the IP discharges his/her duties and responsibilities with utmost diligence, integrity, independence, objectivity, and impartiality. The Code facilitates and empowers the IP to discharge his/her responsibilities effectively. It provides for a comprehensive moratorium to enable the IP focus on running the business and facilitate resolution peacefully. It mandates that the personnel of the CD, its promoters or any other person associated with the management of the CD to extend all assistance and cooperation to the IRP and the RP, as the case may be required by him in managing its affairs.

The RP/IRP plays a key role in the life-cycle of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process from the time of the acceptance of the Petition under Section 7, 9, and 10 of the Code, 2016, the design and agreement of the Repayment Plan, to the final execution of the Plan – it is possible that unfair conduct of the RP jeopardizes the interests of all stakeholders and the CIRP.

The Resolution Professional plays a very complicated role wearing various hats from time to time. It must not be biased, have any conflicts of interest, or any kind of undue influence or coercion, with its decision towards any party whether associated directly or indirectly, during the CIRP. The process must be done transparently. The RP has to take control of the situation, operate the Corporate Debtor and complete all the statutory processes and in the end, it has to find a Resolution of the Corporate Debtor. An Insolvency Professional is not just another professional. He/she is dealing with a Corporate Debtor in distress. He/she needs to go beyond the call of duty to address the distress. The RP(s) have been given immense powers under the Code, but they also have the corresponding responsibility to abide by the Code, Rules, Regulations and Guidelines at all times.

The Insolvency professionals play the role of regulator’s eyes and ears into the workings of the assignments and thus shoulder immense responsibility and are accountable not only to the immediate user of their services but also to a wider stakeholder group, including regulators and the society as a whole.

Thus, every professional must, to the best of his/her abilities, avoid any and all conflicts of interest. Even the barest hint of conflict may taint the whole Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. A professional must not only be independent, impartial and free of any conflict, he must also demonstrably appear to be so. Every professional must be held accountable to the highest standards of independence with respect to the matter at hand. It is the professional's responsibility and duty to not only actively and consciously meet such standards, but to also ensure that no aspersion can be cast on him or his profession.

Accordingly, IP must act as an independent, ethical, and competent professional, ensuring the CIRP is conducted fairly, transparently, and in the best interest of all stakeholders. The Code of Conduct is not just guidance-it is enforceable and central to maintaining the sanctity of the insolvency resolution framework.

The Resolution Professional plays a pivotal and indispensable role in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Much like the spinal cord in a human body, the RP provides structure, coordination, and functionality to the entire CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. The RP is not just a facilitator but the nerve center of the insolvency process. From taking over the management of the Corporate Debtor, to preserving its assets, and facilitating meetings of the Committee of Creditors-every vital function flows through the IRP/RP. But what truly makes the IRP/RP central is not just the responsibility, but the trust and integrity he/she must uphold. Bound by a strict Code of Conduct issued by IBBI, the IRP/RP must act with absolute independence, transparency, and fairness. A competent, ethical, and independent IRP/RP ensures that the CIRP runs smoothly, fairly, and efficiently-ultimately determining whether a distressed company can be revived or dissolved.

If the IRP/RP falters-due to bias, negligence, or conflict of interest-the entire process can collapse, leading to mistrust, legal complications, and even the company’s liquidation. In essence, the success or failure of a CIRP hinges on the quality and conduct of the IRP/RP. Given the mandate of the Code, the role of the RP becomes vital to the efficient and transparent conduct of the CIRP process.

Considering the significant duties and responsibilities entrusted on the IRP/RP under the IBC, the effectiveness and success of the CIRP heavily rely on the IRP’s/RP’s competence, impartiality, and ethical conduct, as the IRP/RP serves not just as a facilitator but as the cornerstone of the entire insolvency framework. Thus, keeping in view of the prayer in the instant IA for seeking removal of Non- Applicant No. 1 i.e. IRP/RP it is incumbent upon this Adjudicating Authority to appreciate the conduct of the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional, namely Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania in the present case during CIRP of the Corporate Debtor which is as follows:

The instant IA is filed by the one of the members of the Suspended Board of the Corporate Debtor namely, Mr. Amit Prakash Gupta, against the RP namely, Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania, and Bank of Baroda, the sole CoC Member of the Corporate Debtor, alleging that the IRP/RP has conducted the CIRP in a biased, unfair, motivated and oblique manner.

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect of the Corporate Debtor was commenced pursuant to the order dated 28.08.2024, wherein the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’) as suggested by the Bank of Baroda, Respondent No. 2 who was subsequently confirmed as the Resolution Professional (‘RP’) by the sole member of the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’), namely, Bank of Baroda itself.

In furtherance of the initiation of the CIRP, a public announcement was made on 30.08.2024 in accordance with Section 15 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 6 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, inviting the creditors of the Corporate Debtor to submit their claims along with supporting proof. The last date stipulated for submission of such claims was 12.09.2024.

The Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’), vide email dated 28.09.2024, informed the Applicant about the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors, which had already been conducted on 27.09.2024. It is pertinent to note that Item/Agenda No. 7 of the said CoC meeting records the disclosure made by the IRP in terms of Regulation 7(2)(h) of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:

In the 1st meeting of CoC meeting held on 27.09.2024, the Interim Resolution Professional (‘IRP’) made only disclosure stating that “he is empanelled as an Insolvency Professional with Bank of Baroda, which is the secured financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor.” This stands as the lone disclosure made by the Non-Applicant No. 1, in compliance with the requirements set forth under Regulation 8 and Regulation 8A of the IBBI (Insolvency Professional) Regulations, 2016. Regulations 8 and 8A provides that an Insolvency Professional must disclose if he has ever been an employee or empanelled professional of any financial creditor of the Corporate Debtor. The said disclosure also includes the existence of any pecuniary and personal relationship with any of the stakeholders so as to show if he/she was an employee of or has been on the panel of the financial creditor. This disclosure has to be made to the CoC and to the Insolvency Professional Agency so as to enable them to publish such disclosure if any on their respective website.

From the perusal of the records of the present case, it is evident that the Non-Applicant No.1, apart from being an Insolvency Professional is also a director of M/s Enforcement Affiliates Private Limited ('EAPL'). The registered address of the aforesaid company is Office No. 402, Ok Plus, DP Metro New Sanganer road, Jaipur, (Raj.)-302019 and the registered email ID is [email protected]. It is pertinent to mention that the email address and registered address of Non-Applicant No.1 are same as that of EAPL wherein the Respondent No. 1 has been holding meetings of CoC of the Corporate Debtor.

A bare perusal of the master data makes it apparent that the Non-Applicant No.1 is the promoter and the director of EAPL from the date of its incorporation i.e. 11.05.2016. The aforesaid entity, i.e. EAPL is engaged in the business of providing recovery and security enforcement services to various Banks and other financial institutions. It is apposite to mention that the aforesaid company is also empanelled by Non-Applicant No.2, i.e. Bank of Baroda, as a recovery agent for various zones, throughout the country.

The fact that Respondent No. 1/RP was a promoter/director of EAPL was not disclosed during the first CoC meeting. This omission, in light of Regulations 8, 8A, and 8B of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, renders the disclosure made by Respondent No. 1 incomplete and partial. The deliberate withholding of such material and essential information suggests a motivated intent and, at best, amounts to a partial disclosure. In terms of, the Insolvency Professional Regulation, the IRP/RP is obligated to provide a full and complete disclosure both at the time of giving consent under Form-AA to act as RP and during the first CoC meeting. As Form-AA of IBBI (Resolution Process For Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 clearly states as under:

Such non-disclosure is extremely significant, as it pertains to the requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and related Regulations which mandates transparency regarding any prior or existing connections with stakeholders involved in the Insolvency Process. Thus, omission of this necessary information by Non-Applicant No. 1 raises serious concerns regarding the propriety and impartiality of the appointment process of the IRP/RP in the instant case and thus, casts doubt on the conduct of IRP/ RP.

The significant and vital information were specifically brought to light by the Applicant and, notably, have not been rebutted or denied by the Resolution Professional (Non-Applicant No. 1) in its Reply to the instant IA. This silence amounts to an implied admission of the said facts. In its Reply, Non-Applicant No. 1 merely states that he is “the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional is an insolvency professional empanelled with Financial Creditor Bank of Baroda.” Beyond this, no further disclosure has been made by him even in the Reply to the instant IA.

From the perusal of the above sequence of the events it is evident that the Resolution Professional has deliberately withheld material information regarding his position as a Director in EAPL, that is functioning as a recovery agent for Non-Applicant No. 2/Bank of Baroda and the said fact has been withheld not only at the time of making disclosure while giving his consent in Form-AA but also in the First CoC meeting and also at the time of filing Reply to the instant IA.

In addition to the foregoing, it is evident from the perusal of the Rejoinder filed by the Applicant that the Non-Applicant No.2/ Bank had issued possession notices to the Corporate Debtor through an E-mail dated 04.09.2013 wherein Non-Applicant No. 1/RP was also marked CC to the said E-mail dated 04.09.2013. Further, it is apparent from the records that the Non-Applicant No. 1 had also appeared on behalf of the Non-Applicant No. 2, before the Ld. Court of District Collector and Magistrate (DM Court), Udaipur in the eight (8) different cases against the Corporate Debtor in the capacity of an Advocate. While we are mindful that the IBC was not in force in 2013 but the longstanding professional relationship between Non-Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is a cause of concern to protect the interest of the Corporate Debtor in the present matter and has elements of creating the doubts upon the fairness of the conduct of the RP.

It is pertinent to note that these facts were conspicuously absent from the RP’s initial Reply and were never disclosed at the earliest opportunity as referred above, including at the time of submitting his written consent in Form-AA upon nomination by Bank of Baroda and in the First CoC Meeting.

It is worth appreciating that it is the Applicant who has disclosed the full facts in the Application and Rejoinder, only after that the RP has considered appropriate to produce an additional affidavit wherein it was stated that “in the matter at hand no conflict of interest arises, however I have made full disclosure regarding my empanelment with the Financial Creditor Bank of Baroda before the initiation of the CIRP and during the first meeting of the Committee of Creditor.” Along with this affidavit, a purported letter dated 15.10.2022 addressed to Bank of Baroda was annexed, wherein the RP allegedly disclosed various relationships with the Bank. The timing and circumstances under which the letter dated 15.10.2022 has been produced, in itself creates element of doubt on the veracity of the document and the conduct of the RP. The alleged letter which indicates that this document is an ante-dated document as alleged and was created as an afterthought to protect the self-interest. It is evidently procured solely to salvage the RP’s conduct. Such belated disclosure lacks bona fide and cannot be relied upon to excuse the RP’s failure to act with the transparency and impartiality mandated under the Code. The RP’s disclosure, if any, ought to have been made at the outset, as the disclosure at a later stage severely undermines its credibility and thus impacting the entire resolution process.

Moreover, given that Bank of Baroda is the sole member of the Committee of Creditors, the purported partial disclosure to the sole CoC member does not mitigate the inherent conflict that too when Respondent No. 1 has been representing the Financial Creditor against the interest of the Corporate Debtor. The CIRP is a collective process conducted requiring a complete transparency on the part of the IRP/ RP to achieve the objectives of IBC for the purpose of resolution of the Corporate Debtor. Thus, even if the arguments advanced by the IRP/ RP is to be appreciated the requisite disclosure made to the sole CoC member by way of alleged letter dated 15.10.2022 cannot be said to be in terms of the requirements of the law which mandates that the complete disclosure has to be made in Form AA in accordance with the code of conduct for insolvency professional as set out in IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulation, 2016 and also at the time of first CoC meeting.

This close long professional relationship against the interest of the Corporate Debtor and in addition to the non-disclosure on the part of the Resolution Professional clearly demonstrate that the Resolution Professional cannot be regarded as an independent and impartial party in the present proceedings. Such entanglement raises serious concerns regarding the RP’s ability to discharge its duties in fair and transparent manner, thereby compromising the integrity of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor. It is evident that the Non-Applicant No. 2/Bank and the Non-Applicant No. 1/Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional shared a relationship against the interest of the Corporate Debtor much prior to the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the Corporate Debtor, thereby undermining the requisite professional independence expected from the IRP/ RP who is expected to an officer of the court.

Accordingly, the RP’s failure to disclose these necessary facts while submitting written consent under Form AA and also at the time of first CoC meeting and the consequent vesting of conflicting mandates in the same individual warrants strict scrutiny, as it is manifestly prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and detrimental to the integrity of the resolution process of the Corporate Debtor as provided under the Code, 2016. The non-disclosure or partial disclosure by Non-Applicant No. 1 in the ongoing CIRP raises serious concerns regarding the transparency and integrity of the process, which attracts the attention of this Adjudicating Authority.

The First Schedule of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 encapsulates the Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals. The objective for enactment of code of conduct is that the Insolvency Professionals, carry out their duties with transparency and fairness.

It is evident that the disclosure made by the IRP during the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors held on 27.09.2024 was incomplete and selective, limited only to the fact of his empanelment with Non-Applicant No. 2 (Bank of Baroda) and deliberately withholding its relationship with EAPL and EAPL being the recovery agent of the Bank. Such a partial disclosure fails to satisfy the requirements under the applicable Regulations, which mandate a full and transparent declaration of any existing or past professional, pecuniary, or personal relationships with the stakeholders involved with the sole purpose and motive of bringing transparency in the entire CIRP process and thus to get the best resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor by maximization of the assets of the Corporate Debtor.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Interim Resolution Professional/Resolution Professional ('IRP/RP') herein occupies a dual and conflicting role. On one hand, he is entrusted with acting in the fiduciary capacity as the Resolution Professional, responsible for overseeing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') with impartiality, fairness, and in the best interests of all stakeholders. On the other hand, he is functioning as promoter director of EAPL simultaneously functions as a recovery agent for the Bank of Baroda against the interest of the Corporate Debtor.

This dual role not only creates conflict of interest but also is in complete contrast or contradiction with on the one hand his role as a Resolution Professional looking for maximization of Corporate Debtor and facilitating the resolution of the Corporate Debtor whereas on the other hand as a recovery agent his entire focus or interest is to get maximum benefit for the Financial Creditor against the Corporate Debtor. Both the roles are independent but are in contradiction with each other as a Resolution Professional he is an officer of the court who is an independent and neutral person whereas as a recovery agent he is working at the behest of the Financial Creditor in the interest of the Financial Creditor alone for a consideration. The fact of non-disclosure on the part of the Non-Applicant No. 1 about his office of profit itself undermines the entire CIRP process.

Another important and most significant factor which deserves the attention of this Adjudicating Authority is that Non-Applicant No. 1/RP has engaged the same Counsel/Advocate namely, Ms. Anubha Singh who was representing the Non-Applicant No. 2 before this Adjudicating Authority in the instant CP before the admission of Corporate Debtor into CIRP under Section 7 of the Code. Furthermore, the same counsel continues to represent the Non-Applicant No. 2/ Bank in other forums such as the Hon’ble High Court and Ld. DRT with respect to the same debt between the same parties which itself undermines the credibility of the counsel and that of the independence of Non-Applicant No. 1.

The conduct of Non-Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, including their use of common legal counsel, reflects a clear lack of independence and collusion, undermining the integrity of the CIRP. Such actions amount to a misuse of the IBC process for recovery, contrary to its intended purpose i.e., resolution of the Corporate Debtor.

In the instant case, the conduct of Non-Applicant No. 1 marked by the non-disclosure of material facts and a clear conflict of interest—violates the Code of Conduct as provided under the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, which mandates transparency, fairness, and independence in conducting the CIRP process. By failing to disclose prior associations and occupying a dual role, compromises neutrality, transparency, and the fairness in the CIRP process.

Given the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to ensure a time-bound, transparent, and equitable resolution of distressed corporate entities, the role of IRP/ RP is crucial in upholding these principles during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The RP is mandated to act as a neutral and independent officer of the court, facilitating the insolvency process with utmost fairness, transparency, and integrity. In complete disregard to the said duties the RP in the instant case has not acted in a fair and transparent manner. Despite multiple opportunities to provide the necessary and complete disclosure, the Resolution Professional in the present case failed to do so on the following occasions:

Thus, the non-disclosure, despite having several opportunities, and the piecemeal disclosure only being confronted by the Applicant with the requisite documents on record, casts serious aspersions on the Resolution Professional throughout the entire CIRP process.

In the given backdrop, we are of the considered view that there is incidence of infringement of the Code of Conduct of the Insolvency Professional by the present Resolution Professional namely, Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania, for not having disclosed his complete relationship or potential conflict of interest in the appointment of the present Resolution Professional.

Based on the discussion above, we find that the conduct of the present RP in the instant CIRP proceeding seems to be non-transparent by not making complete disclosure of its relationship is in clear violation of the core objectives and principles of the Code, which seeks to ensure fair and transparent insolvency proceedings. The RP/ IRP wearing different hats before and the CIRP process. He was safeguarding the interest of the Financial Creditor and after the initiation of CIRP process he is expected to act in the best interest of the resolution of the Corporate Debtor as an independent officer of the Court. The facts and circumstances presented above clearly reveal that the present RP has not made the complete disclosure in terms of the Rule and Regulation framed under the Code, 2016. This conduct goes against the objectives of the Code which leads to collapse of the entire foundation of the IBC.

Based on the discussion above, we find that the conduct of the RP in the instant CIRP proceeding seems to be non-transparent and in clear violation of the core objectives and principles of the Code. The conduct of the RP has not been fair and transparent and has failed to follow the regulations thus, undermining the process and its transparency, thereby jeopardizing the interests of other stakeholders and defeating the object of maximizing value for the Corporate Debtor. We believe that the conduct of Respondent No. 1 as IRP/RP has not been fair and transparent having been conflict of interest. He has conducted the CIRP proceedings in complete violation of IBC provisions.

We therefore direct Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) to investigate the role of Respondent No. 1, RP in the present CIRP proceedings and take further necessary action as per existing provisions of IBC and relevant regulations.

Given the conduct of the present RP namely, Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania, this bench has lost complete faith and confidence in his working in the present CIRP of the Corporate Debtor as the Resolution Professional has miserably failed to follow the due process of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in exercise of its inherent power as provided under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 this Adjudicating Authority considers it appropriate to replace the present RP with Mr. Arvind Kaushik (Contact No. 9413972351), having IBBI registration no. IBBI/IPA-001/IP- P00291/2017-18/10535 and E-mail address '[email protected]. The newly appointed RP is directed to conduct the CIRP afresh by following the strict timelines as provided under the Code with utmost sincerity and in compliance of the provisions of the Code and must make endeavours to complete the CIRP within 180 days. The Ex-Resolution Professional is hereby directed to provide the complete record and documents qua the CIRP to the newly appointed RP within a period of 1 weeks from the date of this Order.

Based on the detailed findings and observations, the order concludes that the Resolution Professional in the present case failed to make the complete disclosure while submitting his written consent under Form-AA and first CoC meeting. Such conduct undermines the core objectives of the Code, which emphasize transparency, fairness, and integrity in insolvency proceedings. This judgment may serve as a strong reminder qua the critical role of the RP as an impartial facilitator essential to the success and credibility of the insolvency resolution mechanism/ process.

Keeping these in view, we hereby pass the following order in instant IA:

A. The newly appointed RP shall start the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor namely, M/s U. N. Automobile Private Limited afresh by making public announcement which has to be completed within strict timelines as provided under the Code, 2016.

B. The newly appointed RP is directed to perform its duties in strict compliance of the Rules and Regulations framed under Code.

C. The Ex-Resolution Professional is hereby directed to provide the complete record and documents qua the CIRP to the newly appointed RP within a period of 1 weeks from the date of the Order. D. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the newly appointed RP namely, Mr. Arvind Kaushik within 3 days from the date of this Order. E. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chairperson, IBBI for necessary actions against the Respondent No. 1, Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania, pertaining to his conduct as enumerated in Para 23 onwards of the instant order.

Per: Ms. Reeta Kohli, Judicial Member

This Interlocutory Application has been filed under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC'/ 'Code') R/w Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 by the Suspended Board of M/s U.N. Automobile Private Limited ('Corporate Debtor') namely Mr. Amit Prakash Gupta ('Applicant') against the Interim Resolution Professional ('IRP'/ 'Non-Applicant No. 1'/ 'Respondent No. 1') namely Mr. Satyendra Prasad Khorania and Bank of Baroda ('Non-Applicant No. 2'/ 'Respondent No. 2'/ 'Bank') for seeking following prayers:-

The Applicant has filed the present Application alleging the following set of facts:

The captioned insolvency petition was filed by the Non-Applicant No.2, under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 seeking, inter alia, initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of M/s U. N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred in short as "Corporate Debtor"/"CD"). The captioned petition was admitted by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 28.08.2024. Resultantly CIRP was initiated qua the CD and Non-Applicant No.1 was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred in short as IRP).

The Applicant is the erstwhile/suspended director of the CD who has approached this Adjudicating Authority being aggrieved by the conduct of the Non-Applicant No. 1, inter alia, whereby the Non-Applicant No.1, i.e. the IRP of the CD is conducting the CIRP in a biased and mechanical fashion; and without performing due diligence to ascertain the veracity of claims submitted by the claimants of the CD including Non-Applicant No. 2. Resultantly, the Non-Applicant No.1 has accepted/admitted the inflated claims submitted by the claimants qua the CD, including Non-Applicant No.2.

In pursuance to the order dated 28.08.2024, the Non-Applicant No. 1 issued a public announcement dated 30.08.2024 as per Section 15 of the IBC, 2016 r/w Rule 6 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons), Regulations 2016 and called upon the creditors to submit their claims, with proof, to the Non-Applicant No. 1. The last date for submission of claims was decided to be 12.09.2024.

The Non-Applicant No.2 has submitted a highly inflated and exaggerated claim of Rs. 250,96,59,650/- (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty Crores Ninety Six Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Only). A bare perusal of the aforesaid documents duly demonstrates that the Non-Applicant No.1 has mechanically admitted the claim of Non-Applicant No.2 without conducting any due diligence, which the Non-Applicant No.1 is mandated to conduct as per the provisions of IBC, 2016 and the rules made thereunder.

The Applicant vide Email dated 26.11.2024 again informed the Non-Applicant No.1 that the claim of Rs. 250.09 Crores submitted by Non-Applicant No.2 has been wrongfully admitted by Non-Applicant No.1 as the said amount is highly inflated and in abject derogation of the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Ld. DRT, Jaipur. The copy of order dated 23.05.2023 was attached with the email dated 26.11.2024. As such, the Non-Applicant No.1 was called upon to seek justification as to why claim of Rs. 250.09 Crore is to be admitted when the quantum has been adjudicated at Rs. 26.07 Crore by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Respondent No. 1 is duty bound to substantiate and verify the claim submitted by Respondent No.2 and not accept it mechanically. Moreover, the Respondent No. 2, being a financial creditor, was also obligated under Regulation 8(2)(b)(iv) of the IBBI Regulations, 2016 to furnish to the Non-Applicant No.1, the copy of order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Ld. DRT, Jaipur.

The verification of amount of claims is a crucial and pivotal role which is to be performed by the IRP/RP. The amount of claim which is admitted by the IRP/RP is one of the most important factors on which the entire CIRP is built up.

The Respondent No. 1 filed its reply, vide Dairy No. 57/2025 dated 07.01.2025 wherein stated that the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional has admitted the claims of Financial Creditor Bank of Baroda on the basis of documents and information provided to the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional. Moreover, the provisionally admitted claim of the Corporate Debtor could not be verified from the Books of Accounts of Corporate Debtor since the Applicant Suspended director has intentionally not shared the Books of Accounts and other information pertaining to the Corporate Debtor with the Non-Applicant No. 1 Resolution Professional. Further it is stated that the proceeding before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur have no significance in the current proceedings. Because, the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur has already been stayed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench vide its order dated 02.06.2023.

The Respondent No. 2 has filed its reply vide Diary No. 176/2025 dated 22.01.2025 wherein stated that it has filed its claim on the basis of the books of account/loan account statement of the Corporate Debtor maintained with the answering Non-Applicant No. 2 It is pertinent to submit that the claim submitted by the Non-Applicant No. 2 is in accordance with the Amended Recovery Certificate dated 30.03.2016, bearing RC No. 24/2016.

We have perused the Application, Replies, and Written Submissions, along with the documents annexed therewith.

The case of the Applicant in a nutshell is that the IRP/RP has conducted the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor in a biased, unfair, and motivated manner. It has been contended that the Non-Applicant No.2/Bank of Baroda has submitted a highly inflated and exaggerated claim of Rs. 250,96,59,650/- (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty Crores Ninety-Six Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Only) and the Non-Applicant No.1 has mechanically admitted the claim of Non-Applicant No.2 without conducting any due diligence, which the Non-Applicant No.1 is mandated to conduct as per the provisions of IBC, 2016 and the rules made thereunder.

On the other hand, the IRP/RP has contended that he has conducted the CIRP proceedings in an utmost transparent manner and has complied with all the provisions of the Code while admitting the claim of the Non-Applicant No. 2/Bank of Baroda. Moreover, it was urged that the Suspended Board of the Corporate Debtor has failed to extend relevant assistance to the IRP/RP in discharging his functions as provided under the Code. Non-Applicant No. 2, Bank of Baroda, has seconded the contentions made by the Resolution Professional and has prayed for dismissal of the instant Application.

The Suspended Board of Director namely Mr. Amit Praksh Gupta has filed another IA(IBC)/600/JPR/2024 in CP(IB) No. 75/7/JPR/2022 for seeking removal of the RP. In the said IA this Adjudicating Authority has passed the following order:

Therefore, in view of the order passed in IA(IBC)/600/JPR/2024 in CP(IB) No. 75/7/JPR/2022 the present IA (IBC) 599/JPR/2024 in CP(IB) No. 75/7/JPR/2022 is disposed of as having being rendered infructuous.

In view of the order pronounced in IA No. 600/JPR/2024, the present IA has been rendered infructuous. Therefore, disposed off as such.

To be taken up with the main case on 06.10.2025.

In view of the order pronounced in IA No. 600/JPR/2024 today itself, posted to 06.10.2025.