Authority: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi

Order Date: 06.11.2026

Case Overview

This appeal was filed by Chandra Prakash Jain against an order dated 03.07.2026 issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) through its Disciplinary Committee, which cancelled his registration as an Insolvency Professional. The appellant sought interim relief to keep the cancellation order in abeyance pending final disposal of the appeal.

The IBBI's impugned order found that Mr. Jain, while acting as Resolution Professional in 12 Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRPs) of the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG), facilitated "grave and systematic misuse of the IBC framework." The specific allegations included:

  • Failure to notice and take remedial action regarding systematically coordinated CIRPs across 12 companies
  • Failure to identify that the entire insolvency ecosystem was managed by a single network, including common applicant, financial creditor, resolution professional, and identical Committee of Creditors
  • Failure to note the SEBI order dated 28.04.2024 in the matter of Reliance Home Finance Limited and 27 entities relating to potential avoidance transactions
  • Failure to file applications for preferential, undervalued, fraudulent, or extortionate (PUFE) transactions under Sections 43, 45, 50, or 66 of the IBC, 2016
  • Compromising the integrity of the bidding process leading to repetitive selection of M/s Micro Capital Pvt. Ltd. as the sole Successful Resolution Applicant in CD-1 to CD-10
  • The negligence and misconduct resulted in negligible realization of debts in these 12 CIRPs, amounting to less than 1% recovery

The Tribunal noted that the Enforcement Directorate had seized documents named "Project Help" showing a systematic attempt by the ADAG group to siphon away money taken from public financial institutions using insolvency as a tool for predetermined object of extinguishment of debts.

Final Outcome

The NCLAT denied the interim relief sought by Mr. Jain and disposed of I.A. No. 4899 of 2026. The tribunal cited multiple reasons for this decision:

  • Similar issues had been considered in other appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1733 of 2026 and 1495 of 2026) where interim relief was denied
  • The Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed as withdrawn a Civil Appeal (No. 13578 of 2026) challenging one of these orders
  • Resolution Professionals can be replaced in any CIRP at any time, causing no irreversible prejudice to stakeholders
  • Legislative intent under Sections 7(5)(a) and 9(5)(e) of IBC prohibits appointment of IPs against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending
  • Granting interim relief to a professional found guilty of misconduct after due process would go against legislative intent
  • Precedent from Arunava Sikdar v. IBBI (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1384 of 2026) where similar relief was denied and upheld by the Supreme Court

The main appeal has been listed for final hearing on 06.01.2027. The tribunal clarified that nothing stated in this order shall prejudice the rights and contentions of the appellant in the main appeal.

Topics: Insolvency Professional Misconduct, IBC Framework Abuse, Regulatory Enforcement