The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) Disciplinary Committee (DC) has suspended the registration of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, an insolvency professional, for a period of one year. The decision was issued in an order dated 18th October 2024, following a series of complaints and inspections.
Page Contents
Background of the Case
The case against Mr. Gupta dates back to a complaint filed on September 30, 2021, which raised multiple concerns regarding his conduct while handling Corporate Debtor-2 (CD-2). Following the complaint, an inspection was initiated, which led to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on May 9, 2022.
The disciplinary committee had previously suspended Mr. Gupta’s registration for three years, effective from July 1, 2022. The current suspension order adds another year to his suspension, with the new period beginning after the expiration of the earlier suspension.
Allegations Against Mr. Gupta
Several allegations were made against Mr. Gupta regarding his handling of claims, financial transactions, and interactions with creditors. The complaints included the following:
1. Acceptance of Claims Without Audit: It was alleged that Mr. Gupta accepted claims amounting to ₹12 crore, seven months after the initiation of the insolvency process, just before the submission of the resolution plan. This acceptance occurred without an audit, raising concerns about the legitimacy of these claims.
2. Double Allotment of Flats: The complaint revealed instances of double allotment of the same flat to two different homebuyers, raising further doubts about the management of creditors’ claims.
3. Lack of Transparency: Despite repeated requests from homebuyers, Mr. Gupta was accused of failing to provide receipts and statements detailing the utilization of funds received from them.
4. Payments Without Due Diligence: The complaint highlighted that several payments made to vendors, staff, and security personnel were executed without proper due diligence, despite repeated requests from the homebuyers.
5. Failure to Address Grievances: Mr. Gupta was also accused of failing to respond to multiple letters from homebuyers addressing their grievances.
Findings by the Disciplinary Committee
The DC noted that Mr. Gupta had provided responses to the above allegations during earlier inspections related to CD-2. These responses were considered by the inspecting authority, which was constituted on November 2, 2021. Mr. Gupta did not dispute the allegations but instead requested the inspection authority to consider his previous replies.
The committee observed that while Mr. Gupta had addressed the issues raised, his actions still constituted a violation of sections 208(2)(a) & (e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Regulation 18(3) of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Regulations, and Regulation 7(2)(a) & (h) of the Insolvency Professional Regulations. These violations were also in breach of multiple clauses of the Code of Conduct for Insolvency Professionals.
Disciplinary Action
In light of the violations, the Disciplinary Committee exercised its powers under Section 220(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017. The committee decided to suspend Mr. Gupta’s registration for one year, in addition to the three-year suspension imposed on July 1, 2022. The new suspension will begin immediately after the completion of the current suspension period, which ends on October 11, 2024.
The committee’s decision was influenced by the fact that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of CD-1 had been stayed immediately after the voting results on May 2, 2022, and was later set aside by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on August 17, 2022.
Further Directions
The order, which will come into effect 30 days after its issuance, contains several key directives:
1. Notification to Stakeholders: A copy of the order will be sent to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) or Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC) of all corporate debtors where Mr. Gupta is providing services. These committees will decide whether to allow Mr. Gupta to continue with his existing assignments.
2. Notification to Professional Agency: A copy of the order will also be forwarded to the Insolvency Professional Agency of the Institute of Cost Accountants of India, where Mr. Gupta is enrolled as a member.
3. Notification to NCLT: A copy of the order will be sent to the Registrar of the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Conclusion
The disciplinary action against Mr. Gupta underscores the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and related regulations. The IBBI’s decision highlights the need for insolvency professionals to ensure transparency, due diligence, and proper communication with stakeholders during the insolvency resolution process.
The show cause notice issued to Mr. Gupta has now been officially disposed of with the issuance of this suspension order.
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
(Disciplinary Committee)
Order No. IBBI/DC/249/2024 Dated: 18th October 2024
This Order disposes of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) No. IBBI/C/2022/00668/772/855 dated 02.08.2023 issued to Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta who is an Insolvency Professional (IP) registered with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) with Registration No. IBBI/IPA-003/IP-N00078/2017-18/10701 and a Professional Member of the Insolvency Professional Agency of Institute of Cost Accountants of India (IPA-ICAI) .
1. Background
1.1. The Hon’ble NCLT, New Delhi Bench (AA) vide order dated 22.03.2022 admitted the application under section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) filed by M/s Colliers International (India) Property Services Pvt. Ltd. for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Logix City Developers Private Limited (CD-1) and appointed Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). However, the admission order of the AA was stayed by the Hon’ble NCLAT vide its order dated 02.05.2022 and subsequently Hon’ble NCLAT set aside the admission order by order dated 02.08.2022. Later, the CIRP was initiated afresh by the AA order dated 17.08.2022 in an application filed by Anil Kaushal & others (home buyers of project named “Blossom Zest”,) under section 7 of the Code and Mr. Manohar Lal Vij was appointed as IRP.
1.2. The AA vide order dated 13.02.2019 admitted the application under section 7 of the Code, filed by Sanjeev Memorial Foundation for initiating CIRP of Kamrup Housing Projects Private Limited (CD-2). Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta was appointed as RP replacing Mr. Surendra Khinvasra vide AA’s order dated 13.06.2019. Later Ms. Ritu Rastogi was appointed as RP by AA vide order dated 12.08.2022 who was further replaced by the AA vide order dated 03.02.2023 after 100% approval by CoC and Mr. Shyam Arora was appointed as RP.
1.3. The IBBI, in exercise of its powers under section 218 of the Code read with regulation 7(1) and 7(2) of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017 (Investigation Regulations) appointed an Investigating Authority (IA) to conduct the investigation of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta in the matter of CD-1 and CD-2. In compliance with regulation 8(1) of Investigation Regulations, the investigation notice was issued to Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta on 28.06.2022 and he submitted reply to the SCN on 14.07.2022. Reminders for further clarification was sent on dated 27.09.2022 and 03.10.2022. On 12.10.2022, he submitted his reply which was incomplete as per IA. Thereafter, IA submitted the investigation report to the Board.
1.4. Based on the material available on record including the investigation report, the Board issued the SCN to Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta on 02.08.2023 alleging contravention of sections 22(2), 208(2)(a) and (e) of the Code, regulation 18(3) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations), regulations 8(4) and 8(8) of Investigation Regulations and regulation 7(2)(a) & (h) of IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016 (IP Regulations) read with clauses 1, 2, 3, 9, 14, 18 and 19 of the Code of Conduct specified thereunder.
1.5. The Board referred the SCN, response of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta to the SCN to the Disciplinary Committee (DC) for disposal of the SCN in accordance with the Code and Regulations made thereunder. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted his reply to SCN vide email dated 06.09.2023. However, the annexures to the reply to the SCN were incomplete. The complete annexures were received from him on 28.08.2024.
1.6. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta was earlier given opportunity for personal hearing before the DC on 19.10.2023 which was adjourned. . He was given another opportunity on 07.02.2024 which was adjourned on his request. Finally, he availed the opportunity of personal hearing through virtual mode before the DC on 03.09.2024. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta provided his additional written submissions on 08.09.2024 where he submitted that the Board has not provided list of 496 homebuyers constituting voting share of 35.46%. In the interest of natural justice, the DC provided him the list of homebuyers constituting 35.46% voting share to Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta. He provided his submissions to the list on 03.10.2024.
1.7. The DC has considered the SCN, the reply to SCN, submissions of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, other material available on record and proceeds to dispose of the SCN.
2. Alleged Contraventions, Submissions, Analysis and Findings.
The contravention alleged in the SCN and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta’s written and oral submissions thereof are summarized as follows.
In the matter of Logix City Developers Private Limited (CD-I)
2.1 Preliminary objections.
Objection-I
2.1.1. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that he has not been furnished with a copy of investigation report nor afforded the opportunity to provide any explanation or response in relation to the contents of the same. The issuance of the SCN is intrinsically linked to the investigation report dated 02.08.2023.
Observations of the DC.
2.1.2. The DC notes that regulation 10 of the Investigation Regulation provides as follows:
“10. Investigation Report.
(1) The Investigating Authority shall submit the investigation report to the Board.
(2) The Board shall examine the investigation report as to whether investigation is complete and satisfactory or requires further investigation and advise the Investigating Authority accordingly within 15 days of receipt of the investigation report.
(3) After taking into account advice of the Board, the Investigating Authority shall prepare the investigation report and submit it to the Board.”
A bare perusal of above provision shows that there is no statutory obligation for sharing investigation report with a service provider who is insolvency professional in this case. The investigation report was shared with Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta along with the SCN in compliance of principles of natural justice.
Objection-II
2.1.3. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that regulation 12(2)(a) of the Investigation Regulations specifies that for the purpose of taking any action in Regulation 12(1)(e), the Board was required to take into the accounts of nature and seriousness of the alleged contraventions, including whether it was deliberate, reckless or negligent on the part of the petitioner. Further, the Board was also required to quantify the consequences and impact of the alleged contravention, including unfair advantage gained by the petitioner, loss caused, or likely to be caused, to stakeholders or any other person and the conduct of the petitioner after the occurrence of the alleged contravention, and prior to the alleged contraventions. However, in the instant case, neither any adverse consequence has occurred due to alleged actions nor have the respondents been able to establish any adverse impact or loss caused to any stakeholder due to the alleged contraventions. There is no justification to the alleged contraventions which have had no effective consequence or impact to the detriment of the CD.
Observations of the DC.
2.1.4. Reading of the regulation 12(2)(a) shows that the nature of the alleged contraventions need to be factored while proposing the action which may be taken against an IP under Regulation 12(1)(e) of the Investigation Regulation. Subsequent use of words such as deliberate, reckless or negligent shows the degree of contravention. It is not that the action can be proposed only for deliberate contravention. However, in this case, the SCN states that by not conducting voting on the resolution for replacement despite being asked by the CoC and persisting with voting on agenda for confirmation reflects that Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta did not act as per the provisions of the Code and Regulations thereunder. It is also stated in the SCN that he acted with malafide intention of espousing his own cause which was confirmation as RP. The DC observes that following up with agenda even when the opposition against it was vociferous has been brought out in the SCN. The seriousness of the offence is apparent on account of being deliberate in forcing the agenda which entails financial benefit to Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta. The attitude of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta in ignoring the substantial voice of financial creditors in a class represented by the AR was also unfair to them. Thus, the DC finds that the SCN was in line with the above provision in bringing out the nature and seriousness of the alleged contravention.
2.1.5. Similarly, reading of the regulation 12(2)(b) shows that the impact of the alleged contraventions need to be factored while proposing the action which may be taken against an IP under 12(1)(e) of the Investigation Regulations, i.e., the benefit being gained by IP and loss being caused to others etc. However, it’s not that every element should be explicitly mentioned before proposing any action. However, in this case, it is quite apparent that by postponing the decision he is delaying of decision of being removed from the role of RP of the CD-1 which entails financial benefit to Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta.
Objection-III
2.1.6. With regards to the CD-2, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that a complaint was filed by some disgruntled/ frustrated Association of Homebuyers against Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta with the IBBI and on 30.09.2021, the IBBI communicated the extracts of the said complaint to the undersigned. First of all, there is an issue of limitation of filing the complaint. As per Regulation 4 of the IBBI (Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations, 2017 (Complaint Regulations), a complaint or a grievance shall be filed within forty-five days of the occurrence of the cause of action for the grievance or complaint. In the instant case, the so called complainant came into existence after about 24 months of the passing of the resolution plan.
Observations of the DC.
2.1.7. The DC observes that provision as contained in section 218(1) of the Code as quoted below is unambiguously clear:
“Where the Board, on receipt of a complaint under section 217 or has reasonable grounds to believe that any insolvency professional agency or insolvency professional or an information utility has contravened any of the provisions of the Code or the rules or regulations made or directions issued by the Board thereunder, it may, at any time by an order in writing, direct any person or persons to act as an investigating authority to conduct an inspection or investigation of the insolvency professional agency or insolvency professional or an information utility.”
A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Code and the Investigation Regulation provides that the Board can initiate investigation at any time on a complaint received.
2.2 Contravention-I
Non-placement of agenda for replacement of RP in CoC.
2.2.1. The Board noted that Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta included an agenda item No. 19 in the first meeting of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) held on 21.04.2022 to appoint himself as RP During discussion on this agenda, he informed CoC that after circulation of notice of first CoC meeting, he received many mails regarding his replacement with new RP and name of proposed new RP was also informed to you in those mails. The minutes further states as under:
“On the request of Financial Creditors in Class the Authorised representative of the class of creditors presented the concerns of the homebuyers to replace the existing IRP with the new RP Mr. Manohar Lal Vij (IBBI Registration No.: IBBI/IBA-001/IP-P-01480/2018-19/12269). …Now for the purpose of determination whether to put this agenda on the voting or not, it was discussed in detail that the agenda be put to vote. However, the agenda for the new RP will not be taken up due to the reason that the stand of the buyers is not independent and not clear…”
2.2.2. Section 22(2) of the Code provides that the CoC, may, in the first meeting, by a majority vote of not less than 66% of the voting share of the financial creditors, either resolve to appoint the IRP as a RP or to replace the IRP by another RP. Further, regulation 18(3) of the CIRP Regulations provide that a RP may place a proposal received from members of the committee in a meeting, if he considers it necessary and shall place the proposal if the same is made by members of the committee representing at least 33% of the voting rights.
2.2.3. It is evident from the minutes of first CoC that Authorised Representative (AR) representing the homebuyers, financial creditors in a class, informed Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta about their decision to replace him with the new RP. Further, he admitted in the CoC meeting of having received many mails seeking to place an agenda for your replacement. It is also observed that CoC sought to put the agenda for your replacement to vote. However, he decided not to conduct voting on the resolution for his replacement and instead went ahead with the voting on his confirmation as RP. His contention in the CoC that the agenda for the new RP would not be taken up due the reason that the stand of homebuyers was not independent and clear, is without any legal basis in view of the fact that the AR clearly informed him about the decision of financial creditors in a class constituting 82.61% voting share to replace him with new RP.
2.2.4. Not conducting voting on the resolution for your replacement despite CoC asking him to do so and to persist with voting on agenda for your confirmation reflects that he did not act as per the provisions of the Code and Regulations thereunder but acted with mala fide intention of espousing your own cause which was his confirmation as RP. In view of the above, the Board held the prima facie view that Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta has contravened sections 22(2), 208(2)(a) & (e) of the Code, regulation 18(3) of the CIRP Regulations, regulation 7(2)(a) & (h) of the IP Regulations read with Clauses 1 ,2, 3, 9 and 14 of the Code of Conduct.
2.3 Submissions by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta.
2.3.1. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that being IRP of CD- I, he had circulated the notice of first CoC meeting with the members of committee on 14.04.2022 scheduled to be held on 21.04.2022. Following the circulation of the notice of CoC meeting, a series of emails were received, purportedly from individuals identifying themselves as home buyers. Upon examination of the recipients’ names, he found that certain emails, bearing identical content, were traced back to individuals who were not the CoC members. Evidently, these emails bore the hallmark of a deliberate endeavour, orchestrated by vested interests, with the primary objective of unseating him and replacing with a more favourable IP. He submitted that these emails manifestly exhibit a calculated and concerted effort, undertaken with the explicit intent of substituting him with a congenial IP, thereby undermining the integrity and impartiality of the independent CIRP.
2.3.2. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that being the first CoC meeting, it was incumbent upon him to give five days’ notice in writing to all the participants for the CoC meetings in terms of regulation 19 of the CIRP Regulations. Accordingly, the notice for the first CoC meeting to be held on 21.04.2022 was sent on 14.04.2022 in compliance of regulation 19(1). In terms of regulation 21(3) of CIRP Regulations, the notice of the meeting must contain the following:
- a list of the matters to he discussed at the meeting;
- a list of the issues to be voted upon at the meeting: and copies of all documents relevant to the matters to he discussed and the issues to be voted upon al the meeting.
The aforementioned context elucidates that any notice pertaining to CoC meeting must comprehensively encompass the proposed agendas, accompanied by the requisite documents to be discussed or voted at the meeting. A cohesive examination of regulation 19 in conjunction with regulation 21 yields a discernible inference that no other agenda or item can be added in the notice for CoC meeting once the same has been issued.
2.3.3. He submitted that he had started receiving emails from several persons claiming to be homebuyers with the same text and language after the issue of notice for the first CoC meeting. These emails primarily were on the issue of adding an agenda item in the CoC meeting had been scheduled on 21.04.2022. Having already issued the notice along with agenda on 14.04.2022 for first CoC meeting on 21.04.2022, it was not legally tenable to add any further agenda.
2.3.4. He submitted that he also received emails from approximately 70 homebuyers who appreciated his efforts and having been satisfied with his functioning wanted him to be appointed as RP. He was required to place the proposal received from the members of the committee representing not less than 33% percent of the voting rights in terms of regulation 18(3) of the CIRP Regulations prior to issuance of the notice along with agenda for the first CoC meeting. He submitted that he started receiving emails from the homebuyers after issue of the notice for first CoC meeting. The received emails had to undergo scrutiny and examination for their genuineness, as they were being sent by individuals who had not filed any claim with IRP. Till 19.04.2022, a total of 350 emails were received from the homebuyers who had filed their claim him. The said emails represented 24.993% of the total voting rights.
2.3.5. That proviso to regulation 19 (2) of the CIRP Regulation states that the CoC may shorten the notice period from five days to a different duration provided it is not less than forty-eight hours in case there is an authorized representative. He submitted that for the sake of argument, if the CoC meeting was convened within the reduced 48-hour period the requests received until 3 PM on 19.04.2022 (48 hours prior to the scheduled time of the CoC meeting) could serve as the basis for including it as an agenda item, provided it meets the threshold percentage of 33%. It is relevant to note that until 3 PM on 19.04.2022, the valid emails received by him for consideration as an agenda item in the upcoming CoC meeting constituted only 24.99% as opposed to the minimum requirement of 33%. Moreover, it takes time to find out the authenticity of the emails coming from the large number of buyers running into thousands. Therefore, he was not obligated to include the agenda item in the CoC meeting, as the legal provisions outlined in the Code and the associated Regulations were satisfied.
2.3.6. He submitted that he has received emails requesting a replacement of the IRP. These emails appear to be manipulative, as an alleged home buyers’ association has attempted to manipulate and influence those homebuyers who are not familiar with the CIRP and are guided by herd mentality. The manipulation becomes apparent from the fact that the emails contain a forwarded message directing the homebuyers to send a particular email without applying critical thinking. The innocent homebuyers merely forwarded such emails without examining such emails as a person of ordinary prudence. The home buyers’ association ran a mail drive to send the manufactured mail to him being IRP of CD-I and Authorized Representative for change of IRP which clearly reflects that the association has tried to mislead the innocent homebuyers by putting forward their decision without communicating the reason for the change of undersigned as IRP. The Association has circulated that all agenda items in the meeting should be dissented and no resolution shall be passed.
2.3.7. That under section 22(2) of the Code, the RP is to be appointed in the first CoC meeting and to meet the said compliance, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta has proposed his name as RP. He was duty bound to present the agenda item for appointment of IRP as RP under above provision.
2.3.8. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that had not only acted in a fair and transparent manner but in accordance with the legal provisions by disclosing the factual position of receiving the request for additional agenda item and not meeting the threshold limit as provided in regulation 18(2) of the CIRP Regulations. The minutes of the first CoC meeting bear testimony to the aforesaid factual position under Agenda item 19 wherein he has mentioned about the emails received from the homebuyers.
2.3.9. He submitted that the members of the committee had put up a proposal with a voting right of 24.99% only instead of 33%. Therefore, in view of the requirements under Regulation 18(3) of the CIRP Regulations, the proposal for change in RP as proposed by the members of the committee was not placed. In the CoC meeting, the issue was discussed in detail about the proposal for change in RP and it was discussed that the agenda couldn’t be taken up due to insufficient request from CoC members representing voting rights of at least 33%. Inadvertently, it was not mentioned in the minutes although it was discussed in detail in the CoC meeting.
2.3.10. He submitted that it is mentioned in the investigation report that as per the information complied by the homebuyers association, 496 homebuyers having vote share of 35.46% sent emails to the IRP as well as to the AR for placing agenda for replacing the IRP in the first CoC meeting. It is also mentioned in the SCN that the AR informed the notice about the decision of financial creditors in a class constituting 82.61% voting share to replace him. He submitted that the complaint was considered without verifying the truth in the statement made by the Homebuyers Association that 496 homebuyers constituting voting share of 35.46%. No such list of the complaints has ever been provided to him by the Board alongwith the complaint. These mails campaign was instituted by the Homebuyers association as otherwise is not possible to collect the data of the so called 496 numbers. Moreover, these mails couldn’t be verified whether these are genuine as per the list of homebuyers as veracity of these mails, i.e., their email address, flat no, signatures etc. need to be checked.
2.3.11. He submitted that the Association has asked the homebuyers to send these mails by miscommunicating on the various issues without realizing whether it is in their interest or not. It is against the spirit of the Code for allowing replacement of the IRP on the basis of such mails. Further, the AR has never intimated about the decision of the financial creditors in a class constituting 82.61% share to replace me with another RP before the CoC meeting. This information is basically shared after the voting process on the agenda item of “appointment of IRP as Resolution Professional”. He referred to the clause 9 under regulation 16A of CIRP regulations as under: 16A. Clause (9).
“The authorised representative shall circulate the agenda to creditors in a class, and may seek their preliminary views on any item in the agenda to enable him to effectively participate in the meeting of the committee:
Provided that creditors shall have a time window of at least twelve hours to submit their preliminary views, and the said window opens at least twenty-four hours after the authorised representative seeks preliminary views:
Provided further that such preliminary views shall not be considered as voting instructions by the creditors.”
In view of the above regulation, it is the duty of the AR to bring any resolution for the replacement on the basis of the above requirements in the regulation. No such preliminary views or suggestions have been shared by the creditors with the AR. There is no communication from the AR for any agenda item other than the already circulated agenda items for consideration in the CoC meeting. In fact, it is the duty of the AR and not of the IRP to include any fresh agenda item.
2.3.12. On specific query for providing details of email received till first CoC meeting dated 21.04.2022. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that an email account was created by him for the said case immediately after commencement of CIRP. The said email seems to be inactive as it has not been used for quite a long time. He tried to open the emails but it was not accessible and as such he could not find the details of the emails asked herein. In view of the same, he was unable to provide the details of emails received till CoC meeting dated 21.04.2022.
2.3.13. On being provided with list of homebuyers constituting 35.46% voting share, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that the said list which was shared with him does not contain the crucial information relating to the date and time of submission of these mails with him. In absence of the said information, he submitted that it is not clear who has forwarded this list to the Board. He further submitted that it is not clear that the Board has got the confirmation from the complainant that these homebuyers, as per the list shared, have sent the mails to him or the Board has got the copy of the all the mails sent by the homebuyers included in the list. Further, from the list shared, it is not possible to verify the authenticity of these mails as to whether these mails pertain to the genuine homebuyers whose claims have been admitted the IRP or from some bogus individuals. For that purpose he needs to verify all the minute details like flat no. claim amount, signature, e-mail etc. The list is silent on the date and timing of sending these mails to the IRP.
2.4 Analysis and Findings.
2.4.1. The DC notes that the agenda for first CoC meeting was circulated on 14.04.2022 for the meetings scheduled to happen on 21.04.2022. Thereafter, he started receiving emails to include agenda for replacement of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta with new RP Mr. Manohar Lal Vij.
2.4.2. The DC notes that regulation 18(3) of the CIRP Regulations provide as follows:
“A resolution professional may place a proposal received from members of the committee in a meeting, if he considers it necessary and shall place the proposal if the same is made by members of the committee representing at least thirty-three per cent of the voting rights.”
Therefore, if an RP receives a proposal from members of committee which are less than 33%, he has discretion to place it before the CoC. In the given case, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that he has received emails from creditors in a class having voting share of 24.99% till 19.04.2022 which is 48 hours before the CoC meeting. Thus, according to him he had the discretion to place the agenda before the CoC. He submitted that the agenda could not be included because as per regulation 19 read with regulation 21 of the CIRP Regulations the agenda cannot be added in the notice for CoC meeting once the same has been issued. The said provisions are reproduced as follows:
19. Subject to this Regulation, a meeting of the committee shall be called by giving not less than five days’ notice in writing to every participant, at the address it has provided to the interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, and such notice may be sent by hand delivery, or by post but in any event, be served on every participant by electronic means in accordance with Regulation 20.
(2) The committee may reduce the notice period from five days to such other period of not less than twenty-four hours, as it deems fit:
Provided that the committee may reduce the period to such other period of not less than forty-eight hours if there is any authorised representative.
….
21. Contents of the notice for meeting.
(1) The notice shall inform the participants of the venue, the time and date of the meeting and of the option available to them to participate through video conferencing or other audio and visual means, and shall also provide all the necessary information to enable participation through video conferencing or other audio and visual means.
(2) The notice of the meeting shall provide that a participant may attend and vote in the meeting either in person or through an authorised representative:
Provided that such participant shall inform the resolution professional, in advance of the meeting, of the identity of the authorised representative who will attend and vote at the meeting on its behalf.
(3) The notice of the meeting shall contain the following-
(i) a list of the matters to be discussed at the meeting;
(ii) a list of the issues to be voted upon at the meeting; and
(iii) copies of all documents relevant to the matters to be discussed and the issues to be voted upon at the meeting.
(4) The notice of the meeting shall-
(a) state the process and manner for voting by electronic means and the time schedule, including the time period during which the votes may be cast:
(b) provide the login ID and the details of a facility for generating password and for keeping security and casting of vote in a secure manner; and
(c) provide contact details of the person who will address the queries connected with the electronic voting.
The DC notes the combined reading of above provisions do not inhibit issue of any amendment/inclusion or exclusion of agenda in notice of CoC meeting. Moreover, the issue could have been discussed in the meeting itself regarding replacement of IRP.
2.4.3. The DC refers regulation 16A(3A) of the CIRP Regulations which provides as follows:
“The financial creditors in the class, representing not less than ten per cent. voting share may seek replacement of the authorised representative with an insolvency professional of their choice by making a request to the interim resolution professional or resolution professional who shall circulate such request to the creditors in that class and announce a voting window open for at least twenty-four hours.”
Considering the importance being given to the voice of ten percent financial creditors in a class to replace AR, voice of a percentage equivalent to 24.99 percent of the financial creditors in a class cannot be ignored by an IP. Moreover, 24.99 percent is the number of financial creditors in a class till 48 hours from the first CoC meeting. The documents submitted by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta at one place states that 379 (out of 1355) allottees having percentage of 26.66672 sent him email till the 48 hours of the meeting while at other place states that 350 (out of 1355) allottees having percentage of 24.99. There is some discrepancy in his calculation of emails received from allotees for his replacement. However, such a substantial voice was required to be paid heed.
2.4.4. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta was further asked to provide the details of the emails received from financial creditors in a class for placing agenda for replacement of IRP before 48 hours and till first CoC meeting dated 21.04. 2022 along with their voting percentage and time and duration when such emails were received. But he stated his inability to provide the required details of the email due to inaccessibility of the email. Thus, the DC is not able to assess voting percentage of the financial creditors in a class whose emails were received after 48 hours from first CoC meeting. Hence, there is no clarity on the total number emails received from financial creditors in a class for replacement of IRP.
2.4.5. The DC further observes that Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta is now submitting that no such list of 496 homebuyers constituting voting share of 35.46% has ever been provided to him by the Board along with the complaint. However, in its earlier reply to the Board on 30.05.2022 he submitted that “It is totally false that 496 homebuyers having vote share of 35.46% sent e-mails to the IRP for placing agenda for replacement of IRP in 1st CoC meeting.” Thus, he had earlier denied of receiving the emails from homebuyers but now he himself has admitted that he received emails from homebuyers having vote shares and now he is requesting list of such allottees during the disciplinary proceedings reflects contradictory submissions.
2.4.6. In the interest of natural justice, the list of 496 homebuyers comprising of 35.46% voting share was provided to him by the DC as per his request. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta raised objections regarding authenticity of homebuyers in the list with respect to flat number, claim amount, email, signature etc. The DC independently applied its mind in comparing both the list of homebuyers, one which was provided by the complainant (List-1) and other which was submitted by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta (List-2). It is seen that the List-1 was having information with columns – ‘S. No.’, ‘1st Applicant’ (name), ‘Co applicant’, ‘Block no.’, ‘Unit No.’, ‘Admitted Amount’, ‘Voting %’. Similarly, List-2 was having information with columns – ‘Sr. No.’, ‘Date (of submission)’, ‘Name of Creditor’, ‘Units No.’, ‘Voting Share’. It is seen that except Column ‘Date of submission’ all other information given in List-2 exist in List-1 as well. Further, List-1 has exact amount of claim admitted which is corresponding consistently with the voting share. This further establishes the bonafide of the list submitted by the complainant. Further, the DC undertook an exercise to compare the names of homebuyers in List-1 with the homebuyers in List-2 on basis of name of creditor, flat no. and voting percentage. The DC finds that out of 350 homebuyers in List-2, 305 were common with List-1. It implies that this List-1 is a genuine list as otherwise the names would not have matched to such an extent. The list for above comparison is enclosed with the order as Annexure-A.
2.4.7. Further, it is seen that List-1 is a list of all homebuyers who have sought replacement of IRP who were in contact with the complainant. The complainant cannot be supposed to have an exhaustive list as he was not having official records of the CIRP. So List-2 which is list of homebuyers given by the Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta is supposed to have more numbers of homebuyers. This is corroborated by the fact that around 45 homebuyers, which comes to around 13% of the homebuyers in List-2 and not finding place in List-1 are persons whose names were not known to the complainant. However, List-2 given by the Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta is only that list of homebuyers who have emailed the IRP at least 48 hours in advance of the CoC meeting. While List-1 may contain even those homebuyers who have emailed subsequently. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta has not provided the list of homebuyers who have emailed within 48 hours before the CoC meeting when so queried by the DC. However, the List-1 suggests that at least there were 496 homebuyers who had emailed for replacement of IRP and were in contact with the complainant. There may be some more homebuyers who were not in contact with the complainant and may have emailed for replacement of IRP. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that by the time of CoC meeting IRP had received emails from homebuyers constituting more than 35.46% voting share of the CoC as emerging from List-1. Even when such large number of emails seeking replacement were received by him before CoC meeting and which exceeded 33% voting share, he went ahead with the voting on resolution of his appointment as RP.
2.4.8. The DC further notes the following minutes from the first CoC meeting as follows:
“On the request of the Financial Creditors in Class the Authorised representative of the class of creditors presented the concerns of the homebuyers to replace the existing IRP with the new RP Mr. Manohar Lai Vij (IBBI Registration No.: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-01480/2018-19/12269)
Now for the purpose of determination whether to put this agenda on the voting or not, it was discussed in detail that the agenda be put to vote. However, the agenda for the new RP will not be taken up due to the reason that the stand of the buyers is not independent and not clear.”
From the above, the DC notes that the AR presented concerns of the homebuyers to replace existing Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta as IRP. However, he ignored such concerns on a unverified assumption that stand of the buyers is not independent and not clear and conducted voting on the resolution for his appointment as RP which was rejected by the allotees having 82.61 percent vote share in CoC. There is no ground to reach this conclusion that stand of homebuyer was not independent. Moreover, an IP is not required to be a judge of the independence of the intention of financial creditors in a class especially which they are raising voice with a substantial number on issue of replacement of IRP/RP. Even if Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta was of such view, he could have taken time to assess the viewpoint of the homebuyer by giving time to AR under regulation 16A(9) of the CIRP Regulations quoted above rather than ignoring concern of a quarter of CoC, whose emails were received before 48 hours of CoC meeting as per his submissions and the concern of more than one third of the CoC whose emails were received by the time of CoC meeting. On matters of appointment of an IP as RP, his conduct is expected to be beyond any questions. Hence, considering the circumstance and hasty and rash conduct Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta in his appointment as RP, the DC holds the contravention.
2.5 Contravention-II
Non-Cooperation to the IA in conduct of Investigation
2.5.1. The Board noted that a notice of investigation was issued on 28.06.2022 by IA requesting Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta to provide response to the allegations raised therein. However, he failed to provide any specific response merely denying the allegations raised without submitting any relevant documents and provided incomplete replies. Despite subsequent reminder e-mails dated 30.06.2022, 05.07.2022, 27.09.2022, 03.10.2022 and 10.10.2022 incomplete response was received. The details of correspondences among IA and him in this regard are as under:
| IA’s queries/request | Response |
| E-mail dated 28.06.2022: Investigation Notice issued. |
E-mail dated 28.06.2022:
Request to provide copies of the complaints. IP informs that he had replied to earlier communications on the complaint in both the matters. |
| E-mail dated 30.06.2022:
Copy of grievance dated 27.05.2022 was shared. It was informed that the said grievance was earlier sent on 31.05.2022 for clarifications but no reply was received. Again a reminder was sent on 17.06.2022 but still no reply was received. |
E-mail dated 05.07.2022:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta stated that he has already replied to these matters but he has not received e-mails dated 31.05.2022 and 17.06.2022. Since, DC order has already been issued, to inform if anything further is required. |
| E-mail dated 05.07.2022:
The emails dated 31.05.2022 and 17.06.2022 were duly sent and copy of those emails were also attached in trailing. Further the notice of investigation, was shared on 28.06.2022. It was again requested to provide your clarifications alongwith relevant documents by 07.07.2022. |
E-mail dated 05.07.2022:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta enquired that as the DC order is already issued, to confirm if reply is still required. |
| E-mail dated 05.07.2022:
IA informed that the requisite response mentioned in the trailing emails is to be provided. |
E-mail dated 05.07.2022:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta informed that he will be travelling for next 5-6 days, so he can submit his reply after 10-12 days and to allow submission by 20.07.2022. |
| E-mail dated 05.07.2022:
Since investigation is a time bound process, it was requested to submit reply within timelines mentioned. |
E-mail dated 14.07.2022:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted incomplete reply. |
| E-mail dated 03.10.2022:
Specific reply to investigation notice sought. |
E-mail dated 06.10.2022:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta sought copy of investigation notice and sought time of one week. |
| E-mail dated 10.10.2022:
IA informed that the investigation notice was already shared on 28.06.2022 and 05.07.2022 and it is again attached for ready reference. Since investigation is a time bound process, IA will not be able to consider request for extension as considerable time has already been granted. |
E-mail dated 12.10.2022:
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted parawise reply but the reply was merely denial of allegations without any substantiation or supporting documents. |
2.5.2. In view of the above it is observed that you failed to provide satisfactory reply/ clarifications or any relevant documents/records on the following allegations in the matter of in the matter of Kamrup Housing Project Private Limited:
a. Admission of huge claims of the promoter without audit (about 12 cr.) after 7 months and just before the submission of Resolution Plan.
b. Allotment of some flats to two different home-buyers
c. Non-furnishing of receipts of payments and statement of utilisation of funds received from the home-buyers.
d. Payments, made to the vendors/ staff/ guards without due diligence, in spite of specific and repeated requests of the Home-buyers.
e. Not replying to letters of home-buyers raising their grievances.
2.5.3. Regulation 8(4) of the Investigation Regulations provides that it shall be the duty of the service provider to produce records in his custody or control and furnish to the IA. Regulation 8(8) of the Investigation Regulations requires the IP to give to the IA all assistance which the IA may reasonably require. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta has not rendered necessary assistance and cooperation to the IA in submission of relevant records and providing clarification for investigation. Further, due to non-submission of requisite documents by you, IA was unable to give its findings on various allegations as mentioned above thereby not only delaying the investigation but also frustrated the entire process.
2.5.4. In view of the above, the Board held the prima facie view that Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta have contravened Section 208(2)(e) of the Code, regulations 8(4) and 8(8) of Investigation Regulations, regulation 7(2)(h) of the IP Regulations read with clauses 18 and 19 of the Code of Conduct.
2.6 Submissions by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta.
2.6.1. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that all the purported contraventions delineated above with respect to CD-2 are a reiteration of the issues previously raised in the complaint communicated by the Board which lead to previous SCN dated 09.05.2022 disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2022. Significantly, the matters outlined in complaint dated 30.09.2021 are identically reflected above were adequately addressed by him via the reply furnished on 05.10.2021 & 12.10.2021, and the responses offered regarding the issues currently cited were duly accepted by the Board at that juncture. Therefore, given that these precise concerns had already been conclusively settled and replied to the satisfaction of the Board, the same matters in a subsequent notice should not be resurrected.
2.6.2. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that in the aforesaid response, he provided the clarification with respect to above four allegations, the details of which are mentioned hereinunder:
At Para 4 (vii) of the email dated 05.10.2021, the allegation pertaining to admission of claims of the related parties was clarified and it was stipulated that the claims were admitted as per accounts and records provided by the ex-management of CD.
At Para 4 (xxi) of the email dated 05.10.2021, the allegation pertaining to non-furnishing of receipts of payments and statement of utilization of funds received from the homebuyers was clarified and it was stipulated that in the minutes of 10th meeting of CoC convened on 18.01.2020, the status of available funds and all the cost incurred during the CIRP was placed before the CoC.
At Para 4 (x) of the email dated 05.10.2021, the allegation about payments made to vendors, staff, and guards was addressed. It was explained that such payments by myself as Resolution Professional of the CD were within my powers and duties. It further elaborated that said payments enabled ongoing operations, thus keeping the CD a going concern. Additionally, he communicated all such payments to the CoC consistently at their periodic. meetings.
At Para 4 (xx) of the email dated 05.10.2021, the allegation pertaining to the allegation about not replying to letters from homebuyers raising grievances was addressed. It was explained that during the CIRP process for the CD, he received various emails without specific requests. After reviewing the emails, he determined that responding would unproductively preoccupy me rather than achieve constructive outcomes, given their nonspecific nature.
2.6.3. He submitted that on 22.10.2021, the Board sought the clarification duplicate entries of some flats having same flat no. appearing in the list of creditors as on September 2019 and not thereafter. He responded on 22.10.2021 as follows:
“The list of the creditors till September 2019 was based on the list provided to us by the erstwhile Resolution professionals having duplicate entries for flats No. A- 803 allotted to Vandana Sharma & Rajendra Sharma and Satish Chand Dixit and flat No. B-505 allotted to Sandeep Sharma & Reem, Sharma and Kritika Singh.
After due verification of all the claims with the accounting records provided by the Corporate Dehtor. it was learnt that the allotment to Mr. Satish Chand Dixit and Ms. Kritika Singh have been cancelled before the CIRP commencement and hence their names were removed from the list of financial creditors as home buyers and were added to the list of claims of other creditors which contained the name of Salish Chand Dixit (for Flat No. A-803) and Kritika Singh (for Flat no. B-505)”
The aforesaid makes it abundantly clear that the issue pertaining to the allotment of some flats to two different homebuyers was already addressed by him.
2.6.4. He submitted that on 02.11.2021 he was communicated by the Board that his inspection is being conducted, in terms of Section 218 (1) of the Code read with regulation 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Investigation Regulations with respect of CIRP of CD-2. Subsequently, the Board communicated a draft inspection report (DIR) vide email dated 22.02.2022.
2.6.5. He submitted that a perusal of the DIR evinces that of all the issues raised initially in the complaint and subsequent clarification requests were not part of the observations of the IA in DIR. Notably, the 5 issues raised in the instant SCN with respect to CD-2 were part of the complaint but were not part of the DIR. This implies the IA were satisfied with my responses, closing all issues other than those stipulated in DIR. The fact that the above 5 issues mentioned in the instant SCN were omitted from the DIR strongly indicates no further justification was required, as the IA found my responses satisfactory. For purposes of presenting a chronological account it is relevant to mention here that the said DIR was responded by him on 11.03.2022. Subsequently, SCN dated 09.05.2022 was issued to him on alleged contravention on the account of removal of financial creditors (homebuyers) from CoC for not contributing to CIRP costs, deficiency in taking custody and control of assets of CD, delayed filing of disclosure, inadequate efforts for recovery of loans and advances, incurring expenses without seeking prior approval of CoC. He submitted reply to the said SCN which was followed by the personal hearing before the DC and same was disposed of on 01.07.2022 suspending his registration for a period of three years.
2.6.6. He submitted that the chronological progression of events reveals that after receiving satisfactory responses from him, the then IA closed all issues which led to non-inclusion of those issues in the previous SCN dated 09.05.2022. Thus, the issuance of a new SCN citing those same matters defies logical consistency. If those issues were adequately addressed previously as confirmed by their omission from the earlier SCN, the grounds for basing a subsequent SCN upon them arc dubious. Basic principles of procedural fairness and reason dictate matters once closed cannot freely be reopened at a later juncture without justification. As no new evidence has come to light. there is no tenable rationale for issuing a fresh SCN on issues already settled.
2.6.7. He submitted that he cooperated fully with the IA throughout the course of the investigation.
a) A notice of investigation was issued by the IA on 28.06.2022, to which he responded seeking the copies of the complaints as referred to by the IA.
b) On 30.06.2022, the IA shared a copy of the grievance with him. In response to the same, on 05.07.2022 he sent an email to IA inquiring, if any response was required, in view of the DC order dated 01.07.2022;
c) As far as the reply to the mails dated 31.05.2022 and 17.06.2022 are concerned, he vide email dated 05.07.2022 had explained he has not received these mail.
d) Subsequently, a series of emails were exchanged on 05.07.2022, wherein he reiterated his position by requesting a confirmation regarding the necessity of a response, considering the passing of the DC order dated 01.07.2022.
2.6.8. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta submitted that in his reply vide mail dated 14.07.2022 he mentioned that highlighted excerpts in the investigation notice were mere repetitions. He had already addressed the said points in the earlier response on 30.05.2022 (reply to the complaint dated 30.09.2021), accompanied by all the pertinent supporting documents. Therefore, no additional response or submission was necessary at this juncture. He submitted that barring paragraphs 8 and 9, the highlighted extracts were once again repetition. A brief summary of the replies given to the issues raised now are provided again for your ready reference:
> Point No a. Admission of huge claims of the promoter without audit (about Rs 12 Cr) after 7 months and just before the submission of the Resolution Plan – please refer to the reply dated 05.10.2021 – Para 4(vii).
> Point No b. Allotment of some flats to two different home buyers – Please refer the reply made by email dated 22.10.2021.
> Point No c. Non-furnishing of receipts of payments and statement of utilization of funds received from the homebuyers — Please refer to the reply dated 05.10.2021 – Para 4(xxi)
> Point No d. Payments made to the vendors /staff/guards without due diligence, in spite of specific and repeated request of the home buyers – Please refer to reply dated 05.10.2021 – Para 4(x).
> Point No e. not replying to homebuyers raising their grievances – Please refer to reply dated 05.10.2021 – para 4(xx)
2.6.9. He had previously addressed these matters in the form of a “reply dated 14/07/2022 in addition to reply to the very first complaint via mail dated 05.10.2021”. “reply dated 12/11/2021 to the Inspection order in the form of Check list of CIRP of the CD” “pre-inspection questionnaire” as well as through various other supporting documents such as “inspection records maintained by IRP/RP” and a “reply to the show cause notice dated 07.06.2022.” Hence, no further reply or submission was warranted at this point.
2.6.10. He submitted that on 27.09.2022, the IA sent an email to him stating that the aforementioned documents do not address the matters outlined in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5. and 7 of the investigation notice dated 28.06.2022. Consequently, he was requested to solicit specific response pertaining to the issues raised in these five paragraphs of the investigation notice. The above email from the IA initially indicated a response deadline of 09.09.2022, which had already passed, leading to his lack of awareness regarding the due date. This error was subsequently corrected by the IA on 03.10.2022, specifying the accurate date of 29.09.2022. Additionally, the IA sought for his response within two days, by 06.10.2022. Consequently, he provided the requested response on 12.10.2022. He submitted that review of the timeline shows he has comprehensively addressed the allegations made by the IA and has cooperated fully by providing all requested information and documents to the best of his ability.
2.7 Analysis and Findings.
2.7.1. The DC notes that earlier a complaint dated 30.09.2021 was received against Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta. Consequently, inspection as initiated with respect to CD-2. The inspection culminated into SCN dated 09.05.2022 which was disposed by then DC on 01.07.2022 suspending registration of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta fore a period of three years.
2.7.2. The DC notes that as per IA following allegations raised in complaints as mentioned in investigation notice dated 28.06.2022 were not satisfactorily replied/clarified by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta.
| Sr. No. |
Allegations | Reply by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta |
| (a) | Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta has accepted huge claims without audit (about 12 cr.) of CD after 7 months just before the submission of Resolution Plan. | Covered in complaint dated 30.09.2021 and replied by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta on 05.10.2021. |
| (b) | As per details of creditors fists published by the RP it came to light that there have been several instances of allotment of the same flat to two different home buyers. Please provide the details of such transactions, if any as well as action taken by you. | Covered in complaint dated 30.09.2021 and replied by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta on 22.10.2021. |
| (c) | In spite of repeated requests by home buyers, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta have not made available receipts payment and statement of utilisation of funds received by him from the home-buyers. | Covered in complaint dated 30.09.2021 and replied by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta on 05.10.2021. |
| (d) | Several payments, made by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta to the vendors /staff/ guards were, not made with due diligence, hi spite of specific and repeated requests of the Homebuyers. | Covered in complaint dated 30.09.2021 and replied by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta on 05.10.2021. |
| (e) | Several letters were addressed by the home- buyers to Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta for their grievances but he have not replied to even one of them. | Covered in complaint dated 30.09.2021 and replied by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta on 05.10.2021. |
2.7.3. The DC observes that the issues raised above have already been attended by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta in his earlier replies during inspection of CD-2. The issues were before the inspecting authority constituted on 02.11.2021. Further, the replies by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta do not highlight non-cooperation by him and instead he was requesting the IA to consider his earlier replies. Hence the DC accepts the submission of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta.
3. Order
3.1 In view of the forgoing discussion, SCN, reply to the SCN, oral and written submission made by Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and the other materials made available to the DC, the DC finds Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta in contravention of sections 208(2)(a) & (e) of the Code, regulation 18(3) of the CIRP Regulations, regulation 7(2)(a) & (h) of the IP Regulations read with Clauses 1,2, 3, 9 and 14 of the Code of Conduct.
3.2 The DC, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 220(2) of the Code read with regulation 13 of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017 hereby suspends the registration of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta for a period of one year considering the fact that the CIRP of CD-1 was stayed immediately after the voting results on 02.05.2022 and later on set aside by the NCLAT on 17.08.2022. The period of suspension will commence on the expiry of the period of suspension imposed on him vide earlier order of the DC dated 11.10.2024.
3.3 This Order shall come into force after 30 days from the date of issuance of this order.
3.4 A copy of this order shall be sent to the CoC/Stake Holders Consultation Committee (SCC) of all the corporate debtors in which Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta is providing his services, and the respective CoC/SCC, as the case may be, will decide about continuation of existing assignment of Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta.
3.5 A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Insolvency Professional Agency of Institute of Cost Accountants of India where Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta is enrolled as a member.
3.6 A copy of this Order shall also be forwarded to the Registrar of the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal.
3.7 Accordingly, the show cause notice is disposed of.
-sd/-
(Sandip Garg)
Whole-time Member, IBBI
Dated: 18th October 2024
Place: New Delhi
Sr. No. |
Date |
Name Of Creditor |
Units No. |
Shares |
S. No. |
1st Applicant |
Co applicant |
Block- Unit |
Admitted Amount |
Voting % |
1 |
16.04.2022 |
Rajesh Kumar |
A-1408 |
0.119 |
460 |
Rajesh Kumar |
A-1408 |
64,39,770 |
0.11 |
|
2 |
16.04.2022 |
Pradeep Dahiya |
A-1906 |
0.109 |
407 |
Pradeep Dahiya |
A-1906 |
61,31,937 |
0.11 |
|
3 |
16.04.2022 |
Saurabh Mishra & Anshu Pandey |
B-1601 |
0.111 |
560 |
Saurabh Mishra |
ANSHUPANDEY |
-1601 |
62,48,394 |
0.11 |
4 |
16.04.2022 |
Lalit Kumar Mishra |
B-1607 |
0.116 |
283 |
Lalit Kumar Mishra |
B-1607 |
65,28,991 |
0.12 |
|
5 |
16.04.2022 |
Anurag Jain |
B-303 |
0.086 |
||||||
6 |
16.04.2022 |
Ram Deo Maurya |
B-602 |
0.122 |
469 |
Ram Deo Morya |
B-602 |
68,72,337 |
0.12 |
|
7 |
16.04.2022 |
Dinesh Kishwan & Veena Kishwan |
B-803 |
0.11 |
166 |
DINESH KISHWAN |
-803 |
45,67,353 |
0.08 |
|
8 |
16.04.2022 |
Atul Tolani and Dharna Tolani |
B-906 |
0.123 |
115 |
Atul Tolani |
Dharna Tolani |
B-906 |
74,52,420 |
0.13 |
9 |
16.04.2022 |
Rahul GopalkrishnaPuranik |
C-1801 |
0.094 |
450 |
Rahul Gopikrishna Puranik |
Varsha Vilas Mangiraj |
C-1801 |
52,84,097 |
0.09 |
10 |
16.04.2022 |
Manish Chaturvedi & Ashish Chaturvedi |
C-203 |
0.127 |
311 |
Manish Chaturvedi |
AshishChaturvedi |
C-203 |
71,24,001 |
0.13 |
11 |
16.04.2022 |
Kamlesh Kumar yadav |
C-506 |
0.117 |
721 |
Kamlesh Kumar Yadav |
C-506 |
65,89,399 |
0.12 |
|
12 |
16.04.2022 |
Varun Walia & chandni walia |
C-708 |
0.104 |
669 |
VARUN WALIA |
Chandni Walia |
-708 |
58,61,557 |
0.1 |
13 |
16.04.2022 |
Alka Kapoor & Medha Kapoor |
C-808 |
0.099 |
753 |
Deepak Kapoor |
C-808 |
55,63,144 |
0.1 |
|
14 |
16.04.2022 |
Pushpa Sajwan and Jagat Singh Sajwan |
D-103 |
0.116 |
441 |
Pushpa Sajwan |
Jagat Singh Sajwan |
D-103 |
64,94,626 |
0.12 |
15 |
16.04.2022 |
Sarabjeet Singh and Harmeet kaur |
D-105 |
0.116 |
767 |
Sarabjeet Singh |
Harmeet Kaur |
D-105 |
65,25,536 |
0.12 |
16 |
16.04.2022 |
Kamlesh Sirohi |
D-106 |
0.122 |
240 |
Kamlesh Sirohi |
D-106 |
68,20,256 |
0.12 |
|
17 |
16.04.2022 |
Mohit Kumar Sachdev |
D-108 |
0.094 |
333 |
Mohit Kr Sachdeva |
d-108 |
52,87,263 |
0.09 |
|
18 |
16.04.2022 |
Sanjeev Kumar and Mridula Alokesi |
D-1105 |
0.115 |
537 |
Sanjeev Kumar |
Mridula Alokesi |
D-1105 |
64,58,470 |
0.12 |
19 |
16.04.2022 |
Abhishek Batra |
D-1605 |
0.098 |
9 |
Abhishek Batra |
D-1605 |
54,82,421 |
0.1 |
|
20 |
16.04.2022 |
Amit Jejurikar & Neha Jejurikar & Dilip Jejurikar |
D-1606 |
0.111 |
37 |
Amit Jejurikar |
Neha Jejurikar, Dilip Jejurikar |
D-1606 |
62,40,705 |
0.11 |
21 |
16.04.2022 |
Sanjay Sharma |
D-1701 |
0.101 |
533 |
Sanjay Sharma |
D-1701 |
56,45,446 |
0.1 |
|
22 |
16.04.2022 |
Sivasish Bebartta |
D-1702 |
0.115 |
593 |
Sivasish Bebartta |
D-1702 |
64,63,054 |
0.12 |
|
23 |
16.04.2022 |
Manabesh Hota |
D-1707 |
0.122 |
||||||
24 |
16.04.2022 |
Kapil Vasudeva & kailash Vasudeva |
D-201 |
0.098 |
245 |
Kapil Vasudeva |
KailashVasudeva |
D-201 |
54,84,724 |
0.1 |
25 |
16.04.2022 |
Ravijit Chaudhuri |
D-301 |
0.095 |
481 |
Ravijit Chaudhuri |
D-301 |
53,49,293 |
0.1 |
|
26 |
16.04.2022 |
NAVEEN RAWAT & MAMTA RAWAT |
D-303 |
0.119 |
362 |
Naveen Rawat |
Mamta Rawat |
D-303 |
66,53,773 |
0.12 |
27 |
16.04.2022 |
Saumen Deb |
D-403 |
0.117 |
558 |
Saumen Deb |
D-403 |
65,88,166 |
0.12 |
|
28 |
16.04.2022 |
Rajneesh Behari Mathur |
D-603 |
0.114 |
464 |
Rajneesh Bihari Mathur |
D-603 |
63,90,129 |
0.11 |
|
29 |
16.04.2022 |
Hitesh Sharma and Ruchi Sharma |
D-901 |
0.096 |
||||||
30 |
16.04.2022 |
Kapil Bhatia and Monika Bhatia |
D-902 |
0.105 |
243 |
Kapil Bhatia |
Monika Bhatia |
D-902 |
59,08,303 |
0.11 |
31 |
16.04.2022 |
Akhilesh Kumar Jha |
E-103 |
0.118 |
712 |
Akhilesh KumarJha |
E-103 |
71,69,121 |
0.13 |
|
32 |
16.04.2022 |
Jyotsna Bansal |
E-106 |
0.115 |
233 |
Jyotsna Bansal |
E-106 |
64,65,846 |
0.12 |
|
33 |
16.04.2022 |
Prabhat Kumar Sharma & Manju Sharma |
E-1103 |
0.109 |
404 |
Prabhat Sharma |
Manju Sharma |
E-1103 |
61,00,960 |
0.11 |
34 |
16.04.2022 |
Neelam |
E-1108 |
0.094 |
||||||
35 |
16.04.2022 |
Amit Sreen & Suresh Sreen |
E-1201 |
0.094 |
43 |
Amit Sareen |
Suresh Sareen |
E-1201 |
52,62,798 |
0.09 |
36 |
16.04.2022 |
Alok Negi & Mr Mrinal Negi |
E-1402 |
0.102 |
33 |
Alok Negi |
Mrinal Negi |
E-1402 |
57,22,026 |
0.1 |
37 |
16.04.2022 |
Nirmal Bhagat, Rajesh Kr. Bhagat,and Dinesh kr. Bhagat |
E-1708 |
0.095 |
376 |
Nirmal Bhagat |
Rajesh And Dinesh |
E-1708 |
53,13,418 |
0.09 |
38 |
16.04.2022 |
Anshuman Buryok |
E-401 |
0.093 |
77 |
Anshuman Buryok |
Geeta Buryok |
E-401 |
51,92,089 |
0.09 |
39 |
16.04.2022 |
Usha Singh |
E-404 |
0.102 |
662 |
Usha Singh |
E-404 |
57,25,261 |
0.1 |
|
40 |
16.04.2022 |
Shivangi Kulshrestha & Uttkarsh |
E-601 |
0.093 |
582 |
Shivango Kulshrestha |
Utkarsh |
E-601 |
52,19,935 |
0.09 |
41 |
16.04.2022 |
Puneet Kumar Aggarwal & Seema Aggarwal |
E-705 |
0.112 |
||||||
42 |
16.04.2022 |
Chhavi Kumar |
F-101 |
0.117 |
138 |
Chhavi Kumar |
F-101 |
65,59,643 |
0.12 |
|
43 |
16.04.2022 |
Laxmi Devi Bhatt |
F-1103 |
0.092 |
280 |
Lakshmi Devi Bhatt |
F-1103 |
51,34,748 |
0.09 |
|
45 |
16.04.2022 |
Ankur Gautam |
F-1201 |
0.083 |
71 |
Ankur Gautam |
F-1201 |
46,73,217 |
0.08 |
|
46 |
16.04.2022 |
Satinder Saini |
F-1408 |
0.082 |
552 |
Satinder Saini |
F-1408 |
46,19,214 |
0.08 |
|
47 |
16.04.2022 |
Upendra KumarSharma/Sharmisthasharma |
F-1601 |
0.106 |
657 |
Upendra Kumar Sharma |
Sharmishta Sharma |
F304-1601 |
59,26,188 |
0.11 |
48 |
16.04.2022 |
Sarita |
F-1602 |
0.106 |
549 |
Sarita |
F-1602 |
59,39,185 |
0.11 |
|
49 |
16.04.2022 |
Dinesh Singh Rana & Meenu Rana |
F-304 |
0.1 |
167 |
Dinesh Singh Rana |
Meenu Rana |
F-304 |
56,21,119 |
0.1 |
50 |
16.04.2022 |
Vishal Bindra & Deepak Bindra |
F-605 |
0.121 |
697 |
Vishal Bindra |
Deepak Bindra |
F-605 |
68,03,143 |
0.12 |
51 |
16.04.2022 |
Paritosh Shukla |
F-704 |
0.088 |
427 |
Pritosh Shukla |
F-704 |
50,75,672 |
0.09 |
|
52 |
16.04.2022 |
Lalatendu Sutar |
F-706 |
0.101 |
282 |
Lalatendu Sutra |
F-706 |
56,49,261 |
0.1 |
|
53 |
16.04.2022 |
Ankaj Kumar |
F-802 |
0.092 |
66 |
Ankaj Kumar |
F-802 |
51,59,933 |
0.09 |
|
54 |
16.04.2022 |
Neeraj singh & Devesh Singh |
F-805 |
0.097 |
368 |
Neeraj Singh |
Devesh Singh |
F-805 |
54,89,596 |
0.1 |
55 |
16.04.2022 |
Bhupinder Singh Saini |
SAT10-416 |
0.047 |
125 |
Bhupinder Singh Saini |
SAT10- 416 |
26,32,189 |
0.05 |
|
56 |
16.04.2022 |
Devendra Dang , Karta |
SAT10-617 |
0.039 |
160 |
Devendra Dang |
SAT10- 617 |
22,05,085 |
0.04 |
|
57 |
16.04.2022 |
Gurdeep Singh |
SAT1-1010 |
0.044 |
203 |
Gurdeep Singh |
SAT1-1010 |
24,65,803 |
0.04 |
|
58 |
16.04.2022 |
Neha Agarwal |
SAT1-1012A |
0.05 |
750 |
NEHA AGGARWAL |
SAT7-1114 |
30,22,060 |
0.05 |
|
59 |
16.04.2022 |
Nalini Bajaj |
SAT2-115 |
0.052 |
355 |
Nalini Bajaj |
SAT2-115 |
29,31,768 |
0.05 |
|
60 |
16.04.2022 |
Devasish malik |
SAT2-817 |
0.055 |
159 |
Devasish Malik |
SAT2-817 |
30,60,135 |
0.05 |
|
61 |
16.04.2022 |
Rakesh Kumar Jain |
SAT3-1008 |
0.048 |
467 |
Rakesh KumarJain |
SAT3-1008 |
26,99,745 |
0.05 |
|
62 |
16.04.2022 |
Harpreet Kaur & Harpreet singh |
SAT3-107 |
0.047 |
209 |
Harpreet Kaur |
Harpreet Singh |
SAT3-107 |
26,55,052 |
0.05 |
63 |
16.04.2022 |
Niraj Kanaujia |
SAT3-120 |
0.041 |
375 |
Niraj Kanaujia |
BZ-1166 |
22,79,741 |
0.04 |
|
64 |
16.04.2022 |
Sunil Mehta and hayat singh Mehta |
SAT3-1220 |
0.029 |
624 |
Sunil Meta |
Hayat Singh Mehta |
SAT3-1220 |
16,07,337 |
0.03 |
65 |
16.04.2022 |
Ketan Gosain |
SAT3-214 |
0.059 |
255 |
Ketan Gosain |
SAT3-214 |
33,07,149 |
0.06 |
|
66 |
16.04.2022 |
Satya Prakash Jha |
SAT3-220 |
0.041 |
771 |
Satya Prakash Jha |
SAT3-220 |
23,06,936 |
0.04 |
|
67 |
16.04.2022 |
Paramjit jaggi |
SAT3-304 |
0.04 |
388 |
Paramjit Jaggi |
SAT3-304 |
22,31,177 |
0.04 |
|
68 |
16.04.2022 |
Amitabha Datta & Sutapa Datta |
SAT3-415 |
0.039 |
48 |
Amitabha Datta |
Sutapa Datta |
SAT3-415 |
21,75,868 |
0.04 |
69 |
16.04.2022 |
Sudha Rani sharma |
SAT3-418 |
0.048 |
605 |
Sudha Rani Sharma |
SAT3-418 |
27,19,471 |
0.05 |
|
70 |
16.04.2022 |
KIRAN BATRA |
SAT3-702 |
0.047 |
258 |
Kiran Batra |
Naveen Batra |
SAT3-702 |
26,46,530 |
0.05 |
71 |
16.04.2022 |
Vipul Kumar |
SAT3-908 |
0.05 |
773 |
Vipin Kumar |
SAT3-908 |
62,14,958 |
0.11 |
|
72 |
16.04.2022 |
Saurav Bhatia |
SAT4-1017 |
0.046 |
561 |
Saurav Bhatia |
SAT4-1017 |
25,84,294 |
0.05 |
|
73 |
16.04.2022 |
Sudel Lall & Aradhana Lall |
SAT4-105 |
0.056 |
604 |
Sudel Lall |
Aradhana Lall |
SAT4-105 |
31,47,213 |
0.06 |
74 |
16.04.2022 |
Namita Gupta |
SAT4-1116 |
0.031 |
357 |
Namita Gupta |
SAT4-1116 |
17,22,436 |
0.03 |
|
75 |
16.04.2022 |
Charu Malik |
SAT4-1212 |
0.037 |
137 |
Charu Malik |
SAT4-1212 |
20,65,852 |
0.04 |
|
76 |
16.04.2022 |
Rama Agarwal |
SAT4-215 |
0.043 |
470 |
Rama Aggarwal |
SAT4-215 |
23,99,569 |
0.04 |
|
77 |
16.04.2022 |
Aditya Goel |
SAT4-302 |
0.022 |
16 |
Aditya Goel |
SAT4-302 |
12,46,444 |
0.02 |
|
78 |
16.04.2022 |
R. Boopathi |
SAT4-312 |
0.046 |
||||||
79 |
16.04.2022 |
Vikas Gaur & Manoj Kumar Sharma |
SAT4-402 |
0.059 |
40 |
Amit Kumar |
SAT4-402 |
19,75,217 |
0.04 |
|
80 |
16.04.2022 |
Praveen Jhangiani |
SAT4-410 |
0.046 |
422 |
Praveen Jhangiani |
MeenaJhangiani |
SAT4-410 |
25,62,020 |
0.05 |
81 |
16.04.2022 |
Rekha Pandey |
SAT4-512 |
0.038 |
488 |
Rekha Pandey |
SAT4-512 |
21,60,041 |
0.04 |
|
82 |
16.04.2022 |
Aksha Dutta and Mr Rajat Dutta |
SAT4-517 |
0.037 |
24 |
Aksha Dutta |
Rajat Dutta |
SAT4-517 |
20,80,778 |
0.04 |
83 |
16.04.2022 |
Laboni Singh |
SAT4-518 |
0.039 |
279 |
Laboni Singh |
SAT4-518 |
21,79,734 |
0.04 |
|
84 |
16.04.2022 |
Sanjay Gupta |
SAT4-520 |
0.042 |
529 |
Sanjay Gupta |
SAT4-520 |
23,44,110 |
0.04 |
|
85 |
16.04.2022 |
Pradeep Arora & Geeta Arora |
SAT4-612A |
0.053 |
406 |
Pradeep Arora |
Geeta Arora |
SAT4- 612A |
29,66,772 |
0.05 |
86 |
16.04.2022 |
Amitabh Ghai |
SAT4-711 |
0.04 |
||||||
87 |
16.04.2022 |
Abhishek Gupta |
SAT7-1012A |
0.054 |
10 |
Abhishek Gupta |
SAT7- 1012A |
30,25,408 |
0.05 |
|
88 |
16.04.2022 |
Murali Krishna & Panchangam & PV Valli |
SAT7-110 |
0.053 |
354 |
Murali Krishna Panchangam |
Pv Valli |
SAT7-110 |
29,88,523 |
0.05 |
89 |
16.04.2022 |
Ruby Kumari |
SAT7-1103 |
0.053 |
506 |
Ruby Kumari |
SAT7-1103 |
30,02,254 |
0.05 |
|
90 |
16.04.2022 |
Modhura Biswas |
SAT7-1106 |
0.052 |
331 |
Modhura Biswas |
SAT7-1106 |
28,93,565 |
0.05 |
|
91 |
16.04.2022 |
NEERAJ SAXENA |
SAT7-1108 |
0.025 |
770 |
Neeraj Saxena |
SAT7-1108 |
13,80,894 |
0.02 |
|
92 |
16.04.2022 |
Satish Chand Devshali |
SAT7-1110 |
0.021 |
553 |
Satish Chand Devshali |
SAT7-1110 |
11,89,741 |
0.02 |
|
93 |
16.04.2022 |
Sudhir Pande |
SAT7-1112 |
0.053 |
608 |
Sudhir Pande |
SAT7-1112 |
29,88,460 |
0.05 |
|
94 |
16.04.2022 |
Amit Chauhan and Ved Pal Anal |
SAT7-1212 |
0.024 |
36 |
Amit Chauhan |
Ved Pal Anal |
SAT7-1212 |
13,64,287 |
0.02 |
95 |
16.04.2022 |
Anand Arzu |
SAT7-304 |
0.044 |
50 |
Anand Aarzu |
SAT7-304 |
24,77,002 |
0.04 |
|
96 |
16.04.2022 |
Richa Nautiyal and Sachin Nautiyal |
SAT7-307 |
0.02 |
||||||
97 |
16.04.2022 |
Deepa Gupta & Neeraj Gupta |
SAT7-314 |
0.053 |
144 |
Deepa Gupta |
Neeraj Gupta |
SAT7-314 |
29,59,369 |
0.05 |
98 |
16.04.2022 |
Deepshikha Kejriwal |
SAT7-414 |
0.053 |
156 |
DeepshikhaKejriwal |
SAT7-414 |
29,59,210 |
0.05 |
|
99 |
16.04.2022 |
Yogesh Kumar |
SAT7-415 |
0.046 |
707 |
Yogesh Kumar |
SAT7-415 |
28,72,619 |
0.05 |
|
100 |
16.04.2022 |
Sidharth Gaur |
SAT7-705 |
0.043 |
591 |
Sidharth Gaur |
SAT7-705 |
23,90,819 |
0.04 |
|
101 |
16.04.2022 |
Neeru Mehra |
SAT7-801 |
0.061 |
369 |
Neeru Mehra |
SAT7-801 |
34,06,121 |
0.06 |
|
102 |
16.04.2022 |
K G Kumar |
SAT7-804 |
0.054 |
234 |
K G Kumar |
SAT7-804 |
32,71,110 |
0.06 |
|
103 |
16.04.2022 |
Arun Gaba |
SAT7-816 |
0.052 |
93 |
Arun Gaba |
SAT7-816 |
29,16,195 |
0.05 |
|
104 |
16.04.2022 |
Bishnu Priya Roy Choudhary & Deepankar Roy Choudhary |
SAT7-918 |
0.052 |
128 |
Bishnu Priya Roy Choudhary |
Deepankar Roy Choudhary |
SAT7-918 |
29,33,564 |
0.05 |
105 |
16.04.2022 |
Harsh Shreekant Pandit |
SAT8-115 |
0.044 |
210 |
Harsh Shreekant Pandit |
SAT8-115 |
24,73,459 |
0.04 |
|
106 |
16.04.2022 |
Alvin Singh |
SAT8-220 |
0.021 |
34 |
Alvin Singh |
SAT8-220 |
11,63,581 |
0.02 |
|
107 |
16.04.2022 |
Vikram dubey |
SAT8-411 |
0.053 |
683 |
Vikram Dubey |
Manjari Ojha |
SAT8-411 |
29,87,156 |
0.05 |
108 |
16.04.2022 |
Jaikrishan Dubey and Madhu Kumari |
SAT8-412 |
0.051 |
225 |
Jaikishan Dubey |
SAT8-412 |
28,23,094 |
0.05 |
|
109 |
16.04.2022 |
Rashmi & Manjeet sharma |
SAT8-712 |
0.012 |
||||||
110 |
16.04.2022 |
NEERAJ SA)(ENA |
SAT8-804 |
0.019 |
769 |
Neeraj Saxena |
SAT8-804 |
10,71,816 |
0.02 |
|
111 |
16.04.2022 |
Emad Ahmad Anis |
SAT9-1113 |
0.038 |
181 |
Emad Ahmad Anis |
SAT9-1113 |
21,07,407 |
0.04 |
|
112 |
16.04.2022 |
NEERAJ SA)(ENA |
SAT9-1210 |
0.019 |
768 |
Neeraj Saxena |
SAT9-1210 |
10,71,816 |
0.02 |
|
113 |
16.04.2022 |
Sanjeev Kumar Govil |
SAT9-1217 |
0.037 |
736 |
Sanjeev KumarGovil |
SAT9-1217 |
20,95,174 |
0.04 |
|
114 |
16.04.2022 |
Shweta Bharti |
SAT9-205 |
0.046 |
637 |
Sweta Bharti |
SAT9-205 |
25,72,108 |
0.05 |
|
115 |
16.04.2022 |
Gatikrishna Rana |
SAT9-304 |
0.048 |
187 |
Gatikrishna Rana |
SAT9-304 |
27,15,962 |
0.05 |
|
116 |
16.04.2022 |
Tarun Sachdev |
SAT9-306 |
0.042 |
644 |
Tarun Sachdev |
SAT9-307 |
23,76,331 |
0.04 |
|
117 |
16.04.2022 |
Sarabjeet Singh |
SAT9-601 |
0.046 |
546 |
Sarabjeet Singh |
SAT9-601 |
25,76,824 |
0.05 |
|
118 |
16.04.2022 |
INDRANI CHAUDHURI |
SAT9-604 |
0.047 |
222 |
Indrani Choudhary |
SAT9-604 |
26,62,004 |
0.05 |
|
119 |
16.04.2022 |
Laxima Luthra |
SAT9-707 |
0.034 |
||||||
120 |
17.04.2022 |
Umesh Gangadhar |
A-1504 |
0.122 |
656 |
Umesh Gangadhar |
A-1504 |
68,72,309 |
0.12 |
|
121 |
17.04.2022 |
Pooja Rani & Praveen Kumar Bansal |
A-503 |
0.123 |
401 |
Pooja Rani |
Praveen Kumar Bansal |
A-503 |
69,08,791 |
0.12 |
122 |
17.04.2022 |
Suruchi |
A-508 |
0.108 |
||||||
123 |
17.04.2022 |
Arvind Kumar agarwal |
A-701 |
0.116 |
101 |
Arvind Kumar Agrawal |
A-701 |
65,27,533 |
0.12 |
|
124 |
17.04.2022 |
Chetan Guliani |
A-903 |
0.133 |
340 |
Mr. Chetan Guliyani |
Ms. Sonia Guliyani |
A-903 |
74,43,787 |
0.13 |
125 |
17.04.2022 |
Varun Sharma & Priyadarshna Sharma |
B-1706 |
0.117 |
667 |
Varun Sharma |
Priyadarshna Sharma |
-1706 |
65,87,468 |
0.12 |
126 |
17.04.2022 |
Arun Gupta & Manish Gupta |
B-1708 |
0.126 |
94 |
Arun Gupta |
Manisha Gupta |
B-1708 |
70,89,434 |
0.13 |
127 |
17.04.2022 |
Goldy Arora & Prerna Arora |
B-502 |
0.113 |
755 |
Goldy Arora |
Prerna Arora |
B-502 |
63,48,818 |
0.11 |
128 |
17.04.2022 |
Arun Khanna |
B-607 |
0.067 |
95 |
Arun Khanna |
B-607 |
63,12,850 |
0.11 |
|
129 |
17.04.2022 |
Lalit Mohan Aggarwal & Anjana Aggarwal |
C-1002 |
0.117 |
284 |
Lalit MohanAggarwal |
AnjanaAggarwal |
C-1002 |
65,51,163 |
0.12 |
130 |
17.04.2022 |
Shantanu Roy & Nabanita Ray |
C-1004 |
0.086 |
572 |
Shantanu |
C-1004 |
48,52,818 |
0.09 |
|
131 |
17.04.2022 |
Rahul Sharma & Shweta Sharma |
C-1406 |
0.109 |
452 |
Rahul Sharma |
Shweta Sharma |
C-1406 |
61,34,102 |
0.11 |
132 |
17.04.2022 |
Shwetajali Kumari |
C-1608 |
0.114 |
587 |
Shwetanjali Kumari |
C-1608 |
64,03,983 |
0.11 |
|
133 |
17.04.2022 |
Sunny Mehra |
C-1901 |
0.117 |
627 |
Sunny Mehra |
C-1901 |
65,37,575 |
0.12 |
|
134 |
17.04.2022 |
Rakesh Kumar |
C-502 |
0.123 |
465 |
RAKESH KUMAR |
-502 |
68,93,738 |
0.12 |
|
135 |
17.04.2022 |
Kshama Gupta |
C-908 |
0.101 |
271 |
Kusum Gupta |
Om Prakash Gupta |
C-908 |
56,95,019 |
0.1 |
136 |
17.04.2022 |
Pankaj Saluja |
D-102 |
0.105 |
384 |
PANKAJ PAHUJA |
-102 |
59,16,578 |
0.11 |
|
137 |
17.04.2022 |
Sridas Garg |
D-203 |
0.113 |
625 |
Sunita Garg |
D-203 |
63,63,248 |
0.11 |
|
138 |
17.04.2022 |
Bhawna Dhamija Jauhari & Puneet Jauhari |
D-405 |
0.095 |
436 |
Puneet Jauhari |
D-405 |
53,23,437 |
0.09 |
|
139 |
17.04.2022 |
Anil Gupta |
D-506 |
0.112 |
55 |
Anil Gupta |
D-506 |
62,70,112 |
0.11 |
|
140 |
17.04.2022 |
Gaurav Rai |
D-507 |
0.12 |
191 |
Gaurav Rai |
D-507 |
67,44,899 |
0.12 |
|
141 |
17.04.2022 |
Harmanpreet Singh & Priyanka Singh |
E-504 |
0.078 |
754 |
Harman Preet Singh |
Priyanka Singh |
E-504 |
43,69,820 |
0.08 |
142 |
17.04.2022 |
Nishkarsh Kulshrestha |
E-608 |
0.093 |
377 |
Nishkarsh Kulshrestha |
E-608 |
52,16,605 |
0.09 |
|
143 |
17.04.2022 |
Kunal Monga |
E-902 |
0.098 |
||||||
144 |
17.04.2022 |
Lunalisa Potsangbam & Anuj Shanker Saxena |
F-1002 |
0.102 |
294 |
Lunalisa Postsangbam |
Anuj Shankar Saxena |
F-1002 |
57,12,844 |
0.1 |
145 |
17.04.2022 |
Diwan Azhar Khan |
F-107 |
0.115 |
172 |
Diwan Azhar Khan |
F-107 |
64,46,955 |
0.11 |
|
146 |
17.04.2022 |
Syed Nowazes Rahaman |
F-1105 |
0.086 |
761 |
Sayed NawajishRahaman |
F-1105 |
48,32,865 |
0.09 |
|
147 |
17.04.2022 |
Abhishek Singh |
F-1406 |
0.112 |
13 |
Abhishek Singh |
F-1406 |
62,86,164 |
0.11 |
|
148 |
17.04.2022 |
Uma Sangwan & Jitendra Sangwan |
F-1608 |
0.11 |
||||||
149 |
17.04.2022 |
Uday |
F-604 |
0.098 |
650 |
Uday Vir Singh Kotwal |
Suman Kotwal |
F-604 |
54,73,884 |
0.1 |
150 |
17.04.2022 |
Shweta Tomar |
SAT10-1114 |
0.044 |
586 |
Shweta Tomar |
SAT10-1114 |
24,90,037 |
0.04 |
|
151 |
17.04.2022 |
Swati Jaswal |
SAT10-417 |
0.048 |
633 |
Swati Jaswal |
SAT10- 417 |
27,06,548 |
0.05 |
|
152 |
17.04.2022 |
Vijay Shankar Yadav |
SAT1-1111 |
0.065 |
677 |
Vijay Shankar Yadav |
SAT1-1111 |
61,59,026 |
0.11 |
|
153 |
17.04.2022 |
Rishi Kumar Kaushik |
SAT1-903 |
0.056 |
735 |
Rishi KumarKaushik |
SAT1-903 |
31,46,138 |
0.06 |
|
154 |
17.04.2022 |
Shalini Bhatagalikar |
SAT1-904 |
0.05 |
739 |
Shalini Abhishek Bhatagalikar |
SAT1-904 |
27,88,697 |
0.05 |
|
155 |
17.04.2022 |
Kapil Ahuja |
SAT2-1807 |
0.048 |
242 |
Kapil Ahuja |
SAT2-1807 |
26,80,618 |
0.05 |
|
156 |
17.04.2022 |
Ramesh Kumar Garg |
SAT2-520 |
0.054 |
473 |
Ramesh Kumar Garg |
SAT2-520 |
30,38,669 |
0.05 |
|
157 |
17.04.2022 |
Sarita Jain & Alok Kumar Jain |
SAT3-1002 |
0.053 |
550 |
Sarita Jain |
Ashok Kumar Jain |
SAT3-1002 |
29,69,457 |
0.05 |
158 |
17.04.2022 |
Deepak Kapoor & Geeta Kapoor |
SAT3-1204 |
0.036 |
147 |
Deepak Kapoor |
Geeta Kapoor |
SAT3-1204 |
20,47,061 |
0.04 |
159 |
17.04.2022 |
Vishnu Gaurav Krishna & Dipti Krishna |
SAT3-1208 |
0.048 |
774 |
Vishnu Gaurav Krishna |
Deepti |
SAT3-1208 |
26,88,184 |
0.05 |
160 |
17.04.2022 |
Sunil kumar Kushwaha |
SAT3-202 |
0.064 |
622 |
Sunil Khushwaha |
SAT3-202 |
35,64,143 |
0.06 |
|
161 |
17.04.2022 |
Kalyani Bhargava &Deepak Bhargava |
SAT3-318 |
0.048 |
||||||
162 |
17.04.2022 |
Anajna Singh & Sona Singh |
SAT3-411 |
0.044 |
63 |
Anjana Singh |
Sona Singh |
SAT3-411 |
24,72,193 |
0.04 |
163 |
17.04.2022 |
Shaloo Khanna |
SAT3-412 |
0.047 |
571 |
Shaloo Khanna |
Neelam Khanna |
SAT3-412 |
26,49,428 |
0.05 |
164 |
17.04.2022 |
Krishan Khanna |
SAT3-412A |
0.047 |
265 |
Krishan Khanna |
Ankur Khanna |
SAT3- 412A |
26,52,498 |
0.05 |
165 |
17.04.2022 |
Vikas Kumar Nindrajog |
SAT3-618 |
0.045 |
678 |
Vikas Kumar Nidrajog |
Manoj Kumar Sharma |
SAT4-402 |
25,19,739 |
0.04 |
166 |
17.04.2022 |
Sourabh Shrestha & Aancchal Loomba |
SAT3-704 |
0.022 |
601 |
Sourabh Shrestha |
SAT3-704 |
12,35,929 |
0.02 |
|
167 |
17.04.2022 |
Kiran Puri & Rakesh Puri |
SAT3-918 |
0.047 |
260 |
Kiran Puri |
Rakesh Puri |
SAT3-918 |
38,00,298 |
0.07 |
168 |
17.04.2022 |
Geeta Kalra |
SAT4-107 |
0.046 |
199 |
Geeta Kalra |
SAT4-107 |
25,68,398 |
0.05 |
|
169 |
17.04.2022 |
Aditya Dwivedi & Aastha Dwivedi |
SAT4-1208 |
0.054 |
114 |
Astha Dwedi |
SAT4-1208 |
30,20,842 |
0.05 |
|
170 |
17.04.2022 |
Padma Srinivasan |
SAT4-212 |
0.047 |
344 |
Ms Padma Srinivasan |
SAT4-212 |
26,57,425 |
0.05 |
|
171 |
17.04.2022 |
Padma Srinivasan |
SAT4-212A |
0.047 |
345 |
Ms Padma Srinivasan |
SAT4- 212A |
26,57,605 |
0.05 |
|
172 |
17.04.2022 |
Punam Chandra Aggarwal & Meena Aggarwal & Sakshi Verma |
SAT4-310 |
0.031 |
762 |
Poonam C Aggarwal |
Meena Aggarwal And Sakshi |
SAT4-310 |
17,14,155 |
0.03 |
173 |
17.04.2022 |
A J S Chhatwal & Praveen Chhatwal |
SAT4-412 |
0.045 |
2 |
A.Js. Chhatwal |
Parveen Chhatwal |
SAT4-412 |
25,28,000 |
0.05 |
174 |
17.04.2022 |
Rajiv anand and Puja Anand |
SAT4-502 |
0.049 |
462 |
Rajiv Anand |
Puja Anand |
SAT4-502 |
27,32,052 |
0.05 |
175 |
17.04.2022 |
Vishal Chugh |
SAT4-910 |
0.047 |
698 |
Vishal Chugh |
SAT4-910 |
26,23,897 |
0.05 |
|
176 |
17.04.2022 |
Mahesh Babbar |
SAT7-118 |
0.052 |
299 |
Mahesh Babbar |
SAT7-118 |
29,30,058 |
0.05 |
|
177 |
17.04.2022 |
Aruna Rishi |
SAT7-119 |
0.047 |
98 |
Aruna Rishi |
SAT7-119 |
26,27,317 |
0.05 |
|
178 |
17.04.2022 |
Damanjit Kaur & Upinder S. Dhingra |
SAT7-1204 |
0.052 |
658 |
Upinder Dhingra |
Dharamjeet Kaur |
SAT7-1204 |
29,32,513 |
0.05 |
179 |
17.04.2022 |
Vamsee Krishna DV & Divya S. |
SAT7-1209 |
0.053 |
663 |
Vamsee KrishnaD.V |
Divya S |
SAT7-1209 |
29,88,358 |
0.05 |
180 |
17.04.2022 |
Yogesh Gupta |
SAT7-1211 |
0.058 |
775 |
Yogesh Gupta |
SAT7-1211 |
32,78,751 |
0.06 |
|
181 |
17.04.2022 |
Mona Sethi & Amit Sethi |
SAT7-1217 |
0.059 |
44 |
Amit Sethi |
Mona Sethi |
SAT7-1217 |
32,89,819 |
0.06 |
182 |
17.04.2022 |
Arun Pujari |
SAT7-212 |
0.053 |
96 |
Arun Pujari |
Vinaya Pujari |
SAT7-212 |
29,52,988 |
0.05 |
183 |
17.04.2022 |
Garima Srivastava |
SAT7-218 |
0.046 |
186 |
Garima Srivastava |
SAT7-218 |
25,99,115 |
0.05 |
|
184 |
17.04.2022 |
Rachna Srivastava |
SAT7-219 |
0.046 |
445 |
Rachna Srivastava |
SAT7-219 |
25,99,115 |
0.05 |
|
185 |
17.04.2022 |
Saurabh Gupta & Veena Gupta |
SAT7-315 |
0.053 |
559 |
Saurabh Gupta |
Veena Gupta |
SAT7-315 |
29,58,178 |
0.05 |
186 |
17.04.2022 |
Ankur Khurana & Harish Khurana |
SAT7-408 |
0.053 |
72 |
Ankur Khurana |
HarishKhurana |
SAT7-408 |
29,56,361 |
0.05 |
187 |
17.04.2022 |
Rumki Guha |
SAT7-505 |
0.054 |
508 |
Rumki Guha |
SAT7-505 |
30,54,125 |
0.05 |
|
188 |
17.04.2022 |
Madhu Malhotra & Manohar Lal Malhotra |
SAT7-701 |
0.047 |
297 |
Madhu Malhotra |
M L Malhotra |
SAT7-701 |
26,39,918 |
0.05 |
189 |
17.04.2022 |
Rajesh Kumar Nigam |
SAT7-704 |
0.052 |
461 |
Rajesh Nigam |
SAT7-704 |
29,24,491 |
0.05 |
|
190 |
17.04.2022 |
Jyotsna Kapoor |
SAT7-808 |
0.047 |
757 |
Jyotsana Kapoor |
SAT7-808 |
26,53,977 |
0.05 |
|
191 |
17.04.2022 |
Chanda Sharma |
SAT8-1012 |
0.018 |
133 |
Chanda Sharma |
SAT8-1012 |
11,10,117 |
0.02 |
|
192 |
17.04.2022 |
Bijay Singh |
SAT8-1120 |
0.063 |
126 |
BIJAY SINGH |
PRIYA SINGH |
SAT5-1120 |
35,09,982 |
0.06 |
193 |
17.04.2022 |
Vijey Koul |
SAT8-205 |
0.048 |
676 |
Vijay Koul |
SAT8-205 |
27,13,303 |
0.05 |
|
194 |
17.04.2022 |
Prerna Chauhan & Santosh Verma |
SAT8-706 |
0.06 |
764 |
Prema Chouhan |
SAT8-706 |
33,61,585 |
0.06 |
|
195 |
17.04.2022 |
Divya Madan |
SAT9-1111 |
0.042 |
169 |
Divya Madan |
SAT9-1111 |
23,60,551 |
0.04 |
|
196 |
17.04.2022 |
Nilesh Akar |
SAT9-1120 |
0.043 |
374 |
Nilesh Akar |
SAT9-1120 |
23,94,660 |
0.04 |
|
197 |
17.04.2022 |
Kavya Nagarajan & Nagarajan S. |
SAT9-1206 |
0.045 |
253 |
Kavya Nagarajan |
Nagarajan S |
SAT9-1206 |
25,11,668 |
0.04 |
198 |
17.04.2022 |
Naren Nagarajan & Nagarajan S. |
SAT9-1207 |
0.046 |
||||||
199 |
17.04.2022 |
Lalitha Nagarajan & Nagarajan S. |
SAT9-1208 |
0.045 |
254 |
Kavya Nagarajan |
Nagarajan S |
SAT9-1208 |
25,11,668 |
0.04 |
200 |
17.04.2022 |
Sandhya Ghosh & Shubhra Ghosh |
SAT9-1216 |
0.046 |
513 |
Sadhya Ghosh |
Shubra Ghosh |
SAT9-1216 |
25,81,952 |
0.05 |
201 |
17.04.2022 |
Gaurishna Consultants Pvt. Ltd. |
SAT9-203 |
0.047 |
194 |
Gaurshna Consultants Pvt Ltd |
SAT9-203 |
26,10,716 |
0.05 |
|
202 |
17.04.2022 |
Gaurishna Consultants Pvt. Ltd. |
SAT9-218 |
0.046 |
195 |
Gaurshna Consultants Pvt Ltd |
SAT9-218 |
25,84,547 |
0.05 |
|
203 |
17.04.2022 |
Mukesh Jairath |
SAT9-605 |
0.046 |
350 |
Mukesh Jairath |
SAT9-605 |
25,77,545 |
0.05 |
|
204 |
17.04.2022 |
Kalpana Gupta |
SAT9-615 |
0.061 |
237 |
Kalpana Gupta |
SAT9-615 |
34,32,167 |
0.06 |
|
205 |
17.04.2022 |
Namarta |
SAT9-909 |
0.026 |
356 |
Namarta |
SAT9-909 |
13,38,235 |
0.02 |
|
206 |
18.04.2022 |
Ashwani Chawla |
A-1001 |
0.127 |
113 |
Ashwani Chawla |
A-1001 |
71,00,968 |
0.13 |
|
207 |
18.04.2022 |
Vipin Rawat |
A-507 |
0.131 |
694 |
Vipin Rawat |
A-507 |
73,47,417 |
0.13 |
|
208 |
18.04.2022 |
Ajay Grover |
A-702 |
0.132 |
19 |
Ajay Grover |
A-700 |
73,84,780 |
0.13 |
|
209 |
18.04.2022 |
Jwalant Joshipura |
A-810 |
0.046 |
230 |
Jwalant Joshipura |
A-801 |
69,48,068 |
0.12 |
|
210 |
18.04.2022 |
Prasanjit Mazumdar |
B-1204 |
0.099 |
417 |
Prasanjit Mazumdar |
B-1204 |
55,31,027 |
0.1 |
|
211 |
18.04.2022 |
Hans Raj |
B-1401 |
0.086 |
756 |
Hans Raj |
B-1401 |
48,37,625 |
0.09 |
|
212 |
18.04.2022 |
Pratap Singh Ningthoujam |
B-305 |
0.107 |
421 |
Pratap Singh Ningthoujam |
-305 |
59,89,365 |
0.11 |
|
213 |
18.04.2022 |
Thoudam Rajeshor Singh |
B-306 |
0.107 |
647 |
Thoudam Rajeshor Singh |
-306 |
59,89,366 |
0.11 |
|
214 |
18.04.2022 |
Ramnish Khanna |
B-508 |
0.116 |
475 |
Ramnish Khanna |
B-508 |
64,94,406 |
0.12 |
|
215 |
18.04.2022 |
Akhilesh kaplish |
B-702 |
0.117 |
22 |
Akhilesh Kaplish |
B-702 |
62,46,618 |
0.11 |
|
216 |
18.04.2022 |
Ankur Jain & Shubhi Jain |
B-802 |
0.107 |
715 |
Ankur Jain |
Shubhi Jain |
B-802 |
69,82,293 |
0.12 |
217 |
18.04.2022 |
Ajay Garg |
C-1001 |
0.104 |
18 |
Ajay Garg |
C-1001 |
58,13,589 |
0.1 |
|
218 |
18.04.2022 |
Karan Ramani |
C-1008 |
0.113 |
||||||
219 |
18.04.2022 |
Mayank Arora |
C-106 |
0.11 |
322 |
Mayank Arora |
C-106 |
61,70,124 |
0.11 |
|
220 |
18.04.2022 |
Divya Pant & Amit Pant |
C-1106 |
0.107 |
||||||
221 |
18.04.2022 |
Saurabh Saggi |
C-1203 |
0.109 |
1 |
Saurabh Saggi |
C-1203 |
61,41,859 |
0.11 |
|
222 |
18.04.2022 |
Ravi Prakash |
C-1207 |
0.124 |
479 |
Ravi Prakash |
POOJA Prakash |
-1207 |
69,50,480 |
0.12 |
223 |
18.04.2022 |
Col Rakesh Sharma and Mrs Sanyukta Sharma. |
C-1504 |
0.032 |
||||||
224 |
18.04.2022 |
Bhavya Devrani |
C-1607 |
0.101 |
442 |
R.P.Shahi |
C-1607 |
65,81,290 |
0.12 |
|
225 |
18.04.2022 |
Gokul Dasan P |
C-706 |
0.13 |
752 |
Gokul Dasan |
C-706 |
72,81,250 |
0.13 |
|
226 |
18.04.2022 |
Pranaya Thapliyal |
C-603 |
0.125 |
||||||
227 |
18.04.2022 |
Dhruv Mehra & Princey Mehra |
C-606 |
0.128 |
164 |
Dhruv Mehra |
Princey Mehra |
C-606 |
71,60,512 |
0.13 |
228 |
18.04.2022 |
Sandeep |
C-607 |
0.111 |
518 |
Sandeep |
C-607 |
62,46,242 |
0.11 |
|
229 |
18.04.2022 |
Archna Pant |
C-707 |
0.129 |
90 |
Archna Pant |
C-707 |
72,44,412 |
0.13 |
|
230 |
18.04.2022 |
Manash Protim Kashyap & Ipsita Devi |
D-1106 |
0.12 |
||||||
231 |
18.04.2022 |
Parwinderjit Singh & Gurmeet Singh |
D-1201 |
0.101 |
||||||
232 |
18.04.2022 |
Anish Verma |
D-1402 |
0.106 |
714 |
Anish Verma |
D-1402 |
59,48,870 |
0.11 |
|
233 |
18.04.2022 |
Gurukirpal Arora |
D-1506 |
0.112 |
207 |
Gurukirpal Arora |
D-1506 |
62,69,627 |
0.11 |
|
234 |
18.04.2022 |
SUNIL DABRAL & KANCHAN DABRAL |
D-503 |
0.116 |
619 |
Sunil Dabral |
Kanchan Dabral |
-503 |
65,36,404 |
0.12 |
235 |
18.04.2022 |
Devendra Taneja |
D-702 |
0.021 |
||||||
236 |
18.04.2022 |
Rohit Srivastava |
D-706 |
0.106 |
766 |
Rohit Srivastava |
D-706 |
59,71,042 |
0.11 |
|
237 |
18.04.2022 |
Saksham Anand |
D-903 |
0.111 |
516 |
SAKSHAM ANAND |
-903 |
62,09,943 |
0.11 |
|
238 |
18.04.2022 |
Somya Kumar & Amit Kumar |
E-1001 |
0.095 |
598 |
Somya Kumar |
Amit Kumar |
-1001 |
53,26,931 |
0.09 |
239 |
18.04.2022 |
Sapna Jain & Mohit jain |
E-1008 |
0.107 |
544 |
Sapna Jain |
Mohit Jain |
E-1008 |
60,12,472 |
0.11 |
240 |
18.04.2022 |
Amit Walia and Davinder Kaur |
E-105 |
0.122 |
47 |
Amit Walia |
E-105 |
68,68,017 |
0.12 |
|
241 |
18.04.2022 |
Monika Kochar & Pradeep Bhatia |
E-1208 |
0.093 |
338 |
Monika Kochar |
Pradeep Bhatia |
E-1208 |
75,98,717 |
0.14 |
242 |
18.04.2022 |
Renu Narang |
E-1605 |
0.078 |
||||||
243 |
18.04.2022 |
Manish Ahuja |
E-1801 |
0.102 |
759 |
Manish Ahuja |
E-1801 |
57,07,789 |
0.1 |
|
244 |
18.04.2022 |
Rawel Arora |
E-303 |
0.111 |
485 |
Rawel Arora |
E-303 |
62,34,703 |
0.11 |
|
245 |
18.04.2022 |
Pranay jairath and vinita jairath |
E-304 |
0.123 |
415 |
Pranay Jairath |
Vinita Jairath |
E-304 |
69,26,153 |
0.12 |
246 |
18.04.2022 |
Abhishek Kumar Singh & Dinesh pratap Singh |
E-503 |
0.092 |
746 |
Abhishek |
E-503 |
51,64,386 |
0.09 |
|
247 |
18.04.2022 |
Siddharth Mathur |
E-505 |
0.117 |
592 |
Sidharth Mathur |
Anibhuti Mathur |
E-505 |
65,82,737 |
0.12 |
248 |
18.04.2022 |
Devendra Taneja |
E-704 |
0.021 |
||||||
249 |
18.04.2022 |
Rajeev Manchanda |
E-808 |
0.1 |
731 |
RajeevManchanda |
E-808 |
56,08,697 |
0.1 |
|
250 |
18.04.2022 |
Himanshu Dutt |
F-1202 |
0.08 |
213 |
Himanshu Dutt |
F-1202 |
45,03,066 |
0.08 |
|
251 |
18.04.2022 |
Sachin Kumar & Gunjan Srivastava |
F-1206 |
0.093 |
510 |
Sachin Kumar |
GunjanSrivastwa |
F-1206 |
53,63,936 |
0.1 |
252 |
18.04.2022 |
NANITA CHOPRA |
F-1605 |
0.079 |
||||||
253 |
18.04.2022 |
Ajay Singh Rana & Yogini Rana |
F-303 |
0.1 |
21 |
Ajay Singh Rana |
Yogini Rana |
F-303 |
56,21,444 |
0.1 |
254 |
18.04.2022 |
Vinod Kumar |
F-403 |
0.089 |
689 |
Vinod Kumar |
F-403 |
50,16,402 |
0.09 |
|
255 |
18.04.2022 |
Vidhushi Agarwal Devrani & Ashish Devrani |
SAT10-105 |
0.023 |
||||||
256 |
18.04.2022 |
Sonia Shokeen & Shakti Singh Nain |
SAT10-317 |
0.06 |
||||||
257 |
18.04.2022 |
Autar Krishan Kachru & Nirmala Kachru & Aditya Kachru |
SAT10-519 |
0.051 |
116 |
Avtar Krishan Kachroo |
Nirmala Kachroo |
SAT10- 519 |
28,43,577 |
0.05 |
258 |
18.04.2022 |
Sandhya Karoria and Mukul Karoria |
SAT1-1119 |
0.053 |
521 |
Sandhya Karoria |
Mukul Karoria |
SAT1-1119 |
29,48,662 |
0.05 |
259 |
18.04.2022 |
K.C Bidani & Yogesh Bidani |
SAT1-212 |
0.052 |
235 |
K.C. Bidani |
Yogesh Bidani |
SAT1-212 |
29,25,928 |
0.05 |
260 |
18.04.2022 |
ASHUTOSH KUMAR |
SAT1-318 |
0.057 |
110 |
Ashutosh Kumar |
SAT1-318 |
31,94,787 |
0.06 |
|
261 |
18.04.2022 |
Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay |
SAT1-320 |
0.047 |
410 |
Pradeep KumarUpadhyay |
SAT1-320 |
26,15,109 |
0.05 |
|
262 |
18.04.2022 |
Abhishek Tripathi and Tanu Tripathi |
SAT1-403 |
0.054 |
14 |
Abhishek Tripathi |
SAT4-801 |
30,20,187 |
0.05 |
|
263 |
18.04.2022 |
Shivangi Rawat |
SAT2-1207 |
0.052 |
581 |
Shivangi Rawat |
SAT2-1702 |
29,43,264 |
0.05 |
|
264 |
18.04.2022 |
Tanuja Prasad |
SAT2-1509 |
0.098 |
640 |
Tanuja Prasad |
SAT2-1509 |
39,54,679 |
0.07 |
|
265 |
18.04.2022 |
Swati Wagh |
SAT2-1609 |
0.073 |
772 |
Swati Wagh |
SAT2-1609 |
41,05,920 |
0.07 |
|
266 |
18.04.2022 |
Gurleen Kaur and Pritpal Singh |
SAT2-209 |
0.061 |
204 |
Gurleen Kaur |
Pritpal Singh |
SAT2-209 |
34,19,991 |
0.06 |
267 |
18.04.2022 |
Sarika Kalia & Manish Kalia |
SAT2-301 |
0.046 |
760 |
Sarika Kalia |
Manish Kalia |
SAT2-301 |
25,54,154 |
0.05 |
268 |
18.04.2022 |
Advocate Chiradeep Majumdar |
SAT2-409 |
0.062 |
751 |
Adv ChiradeepMajumdar |
SAT2-409 |
34,54,474 |
0.06 |
|
269 |
18.04.2022 |
Baban Deep Singh |
SAT3-3 |
0.016 |
117 |
Baban Deep Singh |
SAT3-3 |
8,91,407 |
0.02 |
|
270 |
18.04.2022 |
Abhishek Raghav |
SAT3-204 |
0.04 |
12 |
Abhishek Raghav |
SAT3-204 |
22,21,568 |
0.04 |
|
271 |
18.04.2022 |
Sachin Kumar |
SAT3-217 |
0.048 |
511 |
Sachin Kumar |
SAT3-217 |
15,78,321 |
0.03 |
|
272 |
18.04.2022 |
Akhilesh Kumar Gupta |
SAT3-404 |
0.05 |
23 |
Akhilesh Kumar Gupta |
SAT3-404 |
28,02,292 |
0.05 |
|
273 |
18.04.2022 |
Punita Taneja |
SAT3-419 |
0.05 |
||||||
274 |
18.04.2022 |
Punita Taneja |
SAT3-420 |
0.05 |
||||||
275 |
18.04.2022 |
Mohit Rastogi and Charu Rastogi |
SAT3-502 |
0.044 |
336 |
Mohit Rastogi |
DeepshikhaPant |
SAT3-502 |
24,77,245 |
0.04 |
276 |
18.04.2022 |
Amit Singh |
SAT3-608 |
0.059 |
45 |
Amit Singh |
Priyanka Singh |
SAT3-608 |
33,00,600 |
0.06 |
277 |
18.04.2022 |
Sudharkar Jee |
SAT3-711 |
0.041 |
606 |
Sudhakar Jee |
SAT3-711 |
22,81,057 |
0.04 |
|
278 |
18.04.2022 |
Punita Taneja |
SAT3-816 |
0.047 |
||||||
279 |
18.04.2022 |
Punita Taneja |
SAT3-817 |
0.047 |
||||||
280 |
18.04.2022 |
Vijay Bhatnagar & Anita Bhatnagar |
SAT4-5 |
0.059 |
675 |
Vijay Bhatnagar |
Anita Bhatnagar |
SAT4-5 |
33,18,763 |
0.06 |
281 |
18.04.2022 |
Rajeev Rattan & Savita Gupta |
SAT4-101 |
0.036 |
562 |
Savita Gupta |
Rajeev Rattan |
SAT4-101 |
20,25,218 |
0.04 |
282 |
18.04.2022 |
Vandana Mehra |
SAT4-1202 |
0.06 |
747 |
Vandana Mehra |
SAT4-1202 |
33,38,942 |
0.06 |
|
283 |
18.04.2022 |
Dalip Singh |
SAT4-1209 |
0.031 |
142 |
Dalip Singh |
SAT4-1209 |
17,20,681 |
0.03 |
|
284 |
18.04.2022 |
Asheesh Malik |
SAT4-1212A |
0.037 |
716 |
Asheesh Malik |
SAT4- 1212A |
20,82,090 |
0.04 |
|
285 |
18.04.2022 |
Ranjan Kumar |
SAT4-206 |
0.045 |
||||||
286 |
18.04.2022 |
Naveen Chopra |
SAT4-211 |
0.042 |
||||||
287 |
18.04.2022 |
Shyam Singh |
SAT4-408 |
0.041 |
590 |
Shyam Singh |
SAT4-408 |
22,98,365 |
0.04 |
|
288 |
18.04.2022 |
Pankaj Jain |
SAT4-416 |
0.037 |
||||||
289 |
18.04.2022 |
Renu Mangla |
SAT4-505 |
0.033 |
||||||
290 |
18.04.2022 |
Kiran Singh & Chandan Kumar Singh |
SAT4-506 |
0.045 |
263 |
Kiran Singh |
Chandan Kumar Singh |
SAT4-506 |
25,38,066 |
0.05 |
291 |
18.04.2022 |
Neha Agarwal |
SAT4-716 |
0.05 |
750 |
NEHA AGGARWAL |
SAT7-1114 |
30,22,060 |
0.05 |
|
292 |
18.04.2022 |
Amarendra Kumar &Shweta Sinha |
SAT7-1119 |
0.047 |
588 |
Shwetha Sinha |
Amarendra Kumar |
SAT7-1119 |
26,25,257 |
0.05 |
293 |
18.04.2022 |
Ms. Kiran Shaheen |
SAT7-204 |
0.047 |
261 |
Kiran Shaheen |
SAT7-204 |
26,18,699 |
0.05 |
|
294 |
18.04.2022 |
Seema Dora |
SAT7-301 |
0.056 |
564 |
Seema Dora |
SAT7-301 |
31,63,145 |
0.06 |
|
295 |
18.04.2022 |
Satish Kumar Bansal |
SAT7-620 |
0.063 |
555 |
Satish Kumar Bansal |
SAT7-620 |
35,14,889 |
0.06 |
|
296 |
18.04.2022 |
Ghulam Qadir Khan |
SAT7-703 |
0.052 |
201 |
Gulam Qaudir Khan |
SAT7-703 |
28,92,724 |
0.05 |
|
297 |
18.04.2022 |
Anisha Mehta & Amit Kumar Mehta |
SAT8-1105 |
0.051 |
41 |
Amit Kumar Mehta |
Anisha Mehta |
SAT8-1105 |
28,67,872 |
0.05 |
298 |
18.04.2022 |
Pooja Anand Bhandari nee Pooja Anand |
SAT8-1109 |
0.044 |
399 |
Pooja Anand |
SAT8-1109 |
24,69,398 |
0.04 |
|
299 |
18.04.2022 |
Amit Khullar |
SAT8-405 |
0.049 |
39 |
Amit Khullar |
SAT8-405 |
27,43,493 |
0.05 |
|
300 |
18.04.2022 |
Kartik Malik |
SAT8-814 |
0.052 |
||||||
301 |
18.04.2022 |
MUNEESH CHOPRA & ANITA CHOPRA |
SAT9-1005 |
0.044 |
353 |
Muneesh Chopra |
Anita Chopra |
SAT9-1005 |
24,41,574 |
0.04 |
302 |
18.04.2022 |
Sandeep Gupta |
SAT9-610 |
0.035 |
198 |
Geeta Gupta |
Sandeep Gupta |
SAT9-610 |
19,68,797 |
0.04 |
303 |
18.04.2022 |
Minakshi Beecha |
SAT9-706 |
0.036 |
328 |
Meenakshi Beecha |
SAT9-706 |
19,96,324 |
0.04 |
|
304 |
18.04.2022 |
Vinod Jain |
SAT9-903 |
0.037 |
688 |
Vinod Jain |
SAT3-903 |
20,52,481 |
0.04 |
|
305 |
19.04.2022 |
Navneet Dhawan |
D-1008 |
0.077 |
364 |
Navneet Dhawan |
D-1008 |
43,02,914 |
0.08 |
|
306 |
19.04.2022 |
Anoorag Saxena |
SAT7-406 |
0.055 |
86 |
Anurag Saxena |
SAT7-406 |
30,70,700 |
0.05 |
|
307 |
19.04.2022 |
Abhishek Kumar |
SAT8-1204 |
0.006 |
11 |
Abhishek Kumar |
SAT8-1204 |
3,27,773 |
0.01 |
|
308 |
19.04.2022 |
Parul Sharma & Anil Kumar |
F-301 |
0.094 |
390 |
Parul Sharma |
Anil Kumar |
F-301 |
52,51,895 |
0.09 |
309 |
19.04.2022 |
Mohit Ralen & Jyotika Rani |
C-1403 |
0.128 |
335 |
Mohit Ralen |
Jyotika Rani |
C-1403 |
71,95,725 |
0.13 |
310 |
19.04.2022 |
Jagdish Kumar |
F-302 |
0.101 |
||||||
311 |
19.04.2022 |
Meena sharma |
SAT9-301 |
0.037 |
326 |
Meena Sharma |
SAT9-301 |
20,90,134 |
0.04 |
|
312 |
19.04.2022 |
Madhumita Shome & Subir Shome |
SAT9-609 |
0.045 |
298 |
Madhumita Shome |
Subir Shome |
SAT9-609 |
25,25,278 |
0.05 |
313 |
19.04.2022 |
Fazle Ali |
B-407 |
0.106 |
183 |
Fazle Ali |
B-407 |
59,63,793 |
0.11 |
|
314 |
19.04.2022 |
Suman Sharma |
SAT4-801 |
0.046 |
14 |
Abhishek Tripathi |
SAT4-801 |
30,20,187 |
0.05 |
|
315 |
19.04.2022 |
Swati Kohli |
SAT2-114 |
0.056 |
634 |
Swati Kohli |
SAT2-114 |
31,41,139 |
0.06 |
|
316 |
19.04.2022 |
Manu Kohli |
SAT2-112A |
0.056 |
320 |
Manu Kohli |
SAT2- 112A |
31,20,488 |
0.06 |
|
317 |
19.04.2022 |
Chandra Pal Singh Bisht |
SAT3-719 |
0.053 |
134 |
Chandra Pal SinghBisht |
SAT3-719 |
29,80,159 |
0.05 |
|
318 |
19.04.2022 |
Manveen Kaur |
SAT4-1016 |
0.045 |
321 |
Manveen Kaur |
SAT4-1016 |
25,40,421 |
0.05 |
|
319 |
19.04.2022 |
Satender Singh Patwal |
SAT8-1101 |
0.044 |
711 |
Satender Singh Patwal |
Aditi Patwal |
SAT7-1201 |
24,91,160 |
0.04 |
320 |
19.04.2022 |
Anjali Agarwal |
F-502 |
0.092 |
62 |
ANJALI AGARWAL |
-502 |
51,53,011 |
0.09 |
|
321 |
19.04.2022 |
PAYAL GOEL |
SAT10-119 |
0.046 |
||||||
322 |
19.04.2022 |
Sumita Kainthola |
SAT7-308 |
0.022 |
616 |
SumitaKainthola |
SAT7-308 |
12,58,887 |
0.02 |
|
323 |
19.04.2022 |
Arpit Agarwal |
C-1007 |
0.112 |
781 |
Arpit Agarwal |
C-1007 |
62,79,092 |
0.11 |
|
324 |
19.04.2022 |
LEENA PAHWA |
SAT10-120 |
0.046 |
291 |
Leena Pahwa |
SAT10- 120 |
25,83,183 |
0.05 |
|
325 |
19.04.2022 |
Akshat Naithani |
A-901 |
0.122 |
30 |
Akshat Naithani |
AradhanaDimri |
A-901 |
68,59,273 |
0.12 |
326 |
19.04.2022 |
Sangeeta Saxena |
SAT8-1005 |
0.046 |
524 |
Sangeeta Saxena |
SAT8-1005 |
25,95,473 |
0.05 |
|
327 |
19.04.2022 |
Sanjay Verma |
SAT9-612 |
0.047 |
535 |
Sanjay Verma |
SAT9-612 |
26,10,885 |
0.05 |
|
328 |
19.04.2022 |
MADHU ARORA |
SAT10-116 |
0.046 |
785 |
Madhu Arora |
SAT10- 116 |
25,68,665 |
0.05 |
|
329 |
19.04.2022 |
Sunil Kumar Jain |
B-304 |
0.115 |
784 |
Sunil K Jain |
B-304 |
64,45,428 |
0.11 |
|
330 |
19.04.2022 |
Rachna Dudy |
SAT2-408 |
0.036 |
||||||
331 |
19.04.2022 |
BINDU RANA |
SAT4-102 |
0.045 |
127 |
Bindu Rana |
SAT4-102 |
25,34,085 |
0.05 |
|
332 |
19.04.2022 |
Rosalin Mohapatra |
SAT7-1015 |
0.052 |
504 |
Rosalin Mohapatra |
SAT7-1015 |
29,32,005 |
0.05 |
|
333 |
19.04.2022 |
Rabinder Singh & Vijender Singh |
SAT9-819 |
0.036 |
||||||
334 |
19.04.2022 |
Balwant Singh |
F-208 |
0.106 |
783 |
Balwant Singh |
F-208 |
59,51,245 |
0.11 |
|
335 |
19.04.2022 |
Gargi Devi & Divyanshu Choudhary |
B-1806 |
0.047 |
185 |
GARGI DEVI |
DIVYANSHU CHOUDHARY |
-1806 |
26,33,218 |
0.05 |
336 |
19.04.2022 |
Alind Kapil |
F-1004 |
0.113 |
400 |
Pooja Gupta |
Alind Kapil |
F-1004 |
63,19,098 |
0.11 |
337 |
19.04.2022 |
Anil Juyal |
A-606 |
0.136 |
56 |
Anil Juyal |
A-606 |
76,31,893 |
0.14 |
|
338 |
19.04.2022 |
SANJEEV KUMAR KALRA |
SAT9-302 |
0.046 |
538 |
Sanjeev Kumar Kalra |
SAT9-302 |
25,81,024 |
0.05 |
|
339 |
19.04.2022 |
ramesh Bhardwaj |
SAT7-220 |
0.057 |
780 |
Ramesh Bhardwaj |
SAT7-220 |
32,13,750 |
0.06 |
|
340 |
19.04.2022 |
Inder Raj Singh |
SAT7-605 |
0.056 |
219 |
Inder Raj Singh |
SAT7-605 |
31,21,524 |
0.06 |
|
341 |
19.04.2022 |
Shweta Blana and Sukant Blana |
D-1604 |
0.108 |
584 |
Shweta Blana |
Sukant Blana |
-1604 |
36,20,974 |
0.06 |
342 |
19.04.2022 |
Abhimanyu Sharda |
SAT9-201 |
0.063 |
779 |
Abhimanyu Sharda |
SAT9-201 |
35,38,512 |
0.06 |
|
343 |
19.04.2022 |
Prashant trivedi / Madhvi Kumari |
A-1405 |
0.112 |
419 |
PRASHANT TRIVEDI |
MADHAVI KUMARI |
-1405 |
62,66,949 |
0.11 |
344 |
19.04.2022 |
Ratan Roy |
SAT10-615 |
0.06 |
||||||
345 |
19.04.2022 |
Aruna Malhan & Naveen Malhan |
D-608 |
0.099 |
||||||
346 |
19.04.2022 |
Ashish Mishra |
C-503 |
0.126 |
106 |
Ashish Mishra |
C-503 |
70,54,992 |
0.13 |
|
347 |
19.04.2022 |
Shyama Ratan Sharda |
SAT9-202 |
0.043 |
||||||
348 |
19.04.2022 |
Shailendra Mittal andSuresh Chand Mittal |
SAT7-1006 |
0.06 |
||||||
349 |
19.04.2022 |
Anju Solanki & Suneet Singh Rana |
SAT2-1112 |
0.041 |
778 |
Anju solanki |
suneet singhrana |
SAT2-1212 |
22,90,782 |
0.04 |
350 |
19.04.2022 |
Vishal Gujral |
A-1106 |
0.115 |
699 |
Vishal Gujral |
-1106 |
64,48,263 |
0.11 |
|
Total voting share |
24.993 |
