Mohit Bipinchandra Adatiya Vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Gujarat High Court)
Summary: The Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad considered Special Civil Application No. 10872 of 2026 filed by Mohit Bipinchandra Adatiya against the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The petition challenged the impugned order dated 5th August 2026 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the IBBI. The order records the petitioner’s submissions concerning the composition of the Disciplinary Committee and the alleged involvement of one of its members in the investigation.
Before the Court, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina submitted that Mr. Bhushan Kumar Sinha was a Whole-Time Member of the IBBI and was also assigned the task relating to investigation. The petitioner relied upon averments in the petition and a chart downloaded from the respondent’s website to support this submission.
The petitioner drew the Court’s attention to an order passed by a coordinate Bench in an almost identical situation and submitted that there were a series of such orders. At this stage, reliance was placed upon one such order for the proposition that an investigator who had conducted, or at any point of time had been connected with, an investigation could not be permitted to form part of the Disciplinary Committee and adjudicate upon the issue in question.
The petitioner also challenged the show-cause notice issued under Section 219 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, contending that it had not been issued by a person competent to issue such notice and had instead been issued by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank.
Further, reliance was placed on Regulation 3(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017. The petitioner submitted that an investigating authority was prohibited from being a part of the Disciplinary Committee and contended that the prescribed procedure had not been followed in the present case.
The petitioner also referred to Special Civil Application No. 11944 of 2025, where, according to the submission recorded by the Court, a coordinate Bench had, in respect of a similar show-cause notice/final order, stayed the impugned order while issuing notice by an order dated 11th September 2025. It was submitted that the said Special Civil Application was still pending before the Court.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the Gujarat High Court issued notice, returnable on 3rd November 2026, and permitted direct service upon the respondent. In the meantime, the Court granted ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 45(K) of the petition, to operate until further orders. The order is therefore an interim order granting ad-interim protection; the Court did not finally adjudicate the petitioner’s challenges to the disciplinary proceedings or the impugned order at this stage.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina with learned Advocates Mr. Vishal Dave and Mr. Rahul Bhavsar for the petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina straightaway drew the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 5th August 2026 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India and submitted that one Mr. Bhushan Kumar Sinha is a Whole-Time Member of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.
3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina further drew the attention of this Court to the averments made in the petition, more particularly at page 39, as well as to the chart downloaded from the website of the respondent, to indicate that the aforesaid Mr. Bhushan Kumar Sinha is also assigned the task relating to investigation.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina thereafter drew the attention of this Court to an order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in an almost identical situation and submitted that there are series of such orders. However, at this stage, he relied upon one such order to submit that an investigator who has conducted or at any point of time has been connected with the investigation cannot be permitted to be a part of the Disciplinary Committee and adjudicate upon the issue in question.
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina further submitted that even the show-cause notice issued under Section 219 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was erroneous, as the same was not issued by a person competent to issue such notice, but was issued by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank.
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina thereafter drew the attention of this Court to Regulation 3(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017 and pointed out that an investigating authority is prohibited from being a part of the Disciplinary Committee. He submitted that, in the present case, the aforesaid procedure has not been followed. He further submitted that, considering the precedent in several other matters, including Special Civil Application No. 11944 of 2025, wherein, in respect of a similar show-cause notice/final order, the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 11th September 2025, stayed the impugned order while issuing notice, similar relief may be granted to the present petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina submitted that Special Civil Application No. 11944 of 2025 is still pending before this Court.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kavina, issue Notice, returnable on 3rd November 2026. Direct service is permitted qua the respondent.
In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 45(K) of the petition, till further orders.
