Published on :
Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to upload orders on its website expeditiously, without delay [Subrata Monindranath Maity v. IBBI].
Justice Prathiba M Singh noted that an NCLT order dated March 14, 2022 was uploaded only on April 24, 2022, after a period of six weeks.
On this, the Court observed,
“Considering the nature of the orders which are passed by the NCLT especially orders by which moratorium is declared and IRPs are appointed, endeavour shall be made to upload such orders in an expeditious manner and not in a delayed manner as in the present case.”
The Court was hearing a plea filed by an insolvency professional (IP) to set aside an order passed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) in January which suspended him for one year.
By the said order, the IBBI had suspended Maity for demanding a bribe of ₹20 lakh to settle the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of a party.
As per the complaint dated May 3 filed with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), it was alleged that after the settlement between the operational creditor and the company, Guardian Homes, Maity had approached the latter and demanded an additional amount of ₹20 lakh in addition to his fees of ₹4 lakh. He allegedly threatened the complainant that failure to pay the additional amount would result in coercive actions against Guardian Homes such as seizure of bank accounts, publication of notice of liquidation, etc.
On receiving the complaint, the CBI conducted an operation after which a third party individual acting on behalf of the IP was arrested with an initial payment of ₹2 lakh, followed by the arrest of the IP himself. The CBI is still investigating the matter and based on incriminating documents found at the premises of the accused, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered on May 4.
On going through the FIR, the Disciplinary Committee found that the allegations were serious in nature and led to a contravention of multiple provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as well as the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client did not indulge in any misconduct, and thus the suspension was not tenable.
Counsel for IBBI called into question the petitioner’s conduct in two cases, including the present one, for which show cause notices were issued. In fact, the CBI has already registered a case against the petitioner, counsel added.
While issuing notice to the parties, the Court held,
“Considering the nature of the matter, CBI is impleaded as Respondent No.2 in the matter. Let the amended memo of parties be filed within a period of one week”.
The matter will be heard by the Court on September 8. CBI was directed to a status report in respect of the case which has been registered by it in Pune at least one week before the next date of hearing.
Advocates Vikram Hegde and Jagrit Vyas represented petitioner.
IBBI was represented by Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan and advocate Sahil Monga.
Advocate Ripu Daman Bhardwaj appeared for CBI.
