IBBI suspends Insolvency Professional for one year over CIRP lapses and non‑cooperation

1. Background of the proceedings

The matter concerns disciplinary action taken by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) against Mr. Navneet Gupta, an Insolvency Professional registered with Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00361/2017-18/10619, who is also a professional member of the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professional of ICAI (IIIPI).

He was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the CIRP of M/s. Nimitaya Hotel and Resorts Limited, later confirmed as the Resolution Professional (RP), pursuant to an order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (Adjudicating Authority / AA) under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) on an application filed by Indian Bank.

The Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved a resolution plan on 08.01.2023, and IA/987/2023 seeking approval of that plan was filed before the AA on 19.01.2023, where it remained pending on the date relevant to the disciplinary action.

Subsequently, the IBBI received three complaints dated 28.02.2025, 13.03.2025, and 19.05.2025 against the conduct of Mr. Navneet Gupta in this CIRP. On examination of the complaints and his replies, the Board formed a prima facie view that he had contravened provisions of the Code and the regulations. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 28.11.2025 was then issued, to which the IP submitted a detailed written response on 19.01.2026, followed by addenda dated 28.06.2026 and 23.07.2026, and a preliminary objection dated 01.08.2026.

The matter, along with his replies, was placed before the Disciplinary Committee (DC) of IBBI. A virtual personal hearing was held on 11.08.2026, where he was represented by counsel Mr. Rajansh Thukral, and he also filed further written submissions on 17.08.2026.

The DC’s order, being Order No. IBBI/DC/342/2026 dated 21 August 2026, culminated in suspension of his registration for one year, with connected directions to existing CoCs.

Note: The extracted order text is a judicial/administrative decision. Accordingly, the key aspects are summarised below rather than reproduced verbatim.

2. Preliminary objections raised by the Insolvency Professional and the DC’s rulings

2.1 Alleged non‑consideration of reply dated 16.10.2025

The IP argued that he had sent a detailed reply by email on 16.10.2025 in response to the complaint examination communications and that this reply pre‑dated the SCN. He contended that there was nothing on record to show that his right to submit this reply had been closed or that the reply was rejected or excluded from consideration. He also highlighted that the SCN stated he “did not submit” a reply to a particular email, which he asserted was factually incorrect given the 16.10.2025 email.

He further pointed to the fact that the examination notes recorded that the complaints themselves were filed beyond the prescribed time under the IBBI (Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations, 2017, yet were still entertained, whereas his delayed response, despite a request for condonation explaining personal difficulties, was allegedly not treated with similar latitude.

The DC reconstructed the email timeline for each complaint and noted:

  • Under Regulation 7(2) of the Complaint Regulations, a service provider ordinarily has 7 days (extendable by a further 7 days) to respond.
  • Extensions had been repeatedly granted to the IP well beyond this outer limit.
  • In the third complaint, despite multiple reminders on 25.07.2025, 04.08.2025 and 12.08.2025, there was no response, resulting in examination being carried out on existing material.
  • The file was put up on 19.09.2025 and the competent authority decided to issue an SCN on 26.09.2025. The email reply of 16.10.2025 came after this decision when the SCN was already under preparation.

The DC held that:

  • There is no requirement for a formal “closure of right to reply” order during complaint examination.
  • The stage of forming a prima facie view for issuing an SCN is administrative, not a final adjudication; strict rules of natural justice applicable to final orders do not attach at that point.
  • The IP’s conduct showed undue delay despite repeated opportunities.
  • Any procedural defect stood effectively cured because the 16.10.2025 reply and the reasons for delay were available to, and actually considered by, the DC at the adjudicatory stage.

Accordingly, the preliminary objection on this ground was rejected.

2.2 Effect of complaint being shown as “Closed” on IBBI portal

The IP relied on the online complaint portal, which reflected the complaint as “Closed” with an entry dated 09.10.2025, contending that once a complaint is closed, it attains finality unless lawfully reopened, and that no order of re‑opening or recall had been shared with him. He therefore questioned the jurisdiction to issue an SCN after such closure.

The DC clarified that:

  • Marking a complaint as “Closed” on the portal only indicates that the complaint examination is complete and that further action (such as SCN/advisory/no action) has been decided.
  • SCN issuance is a possible consequence following closure of complaint examination; therefore, closure on the portal is not inconsistent with issuing an SCN.
  • The portal view is accessible to the complainant, not to insolvency professionals, and the IP is not a party to the internal complaint handling process.

The DC concluded that this objection was based on a misreading of the administrative status and therefore was untenable.

2.3 Challenge based on Sections 218 and 219 – absence of inspection or investigation order

The IP submitted that: