The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India Disciplinary Committee found that an Insolvency Professional committed misconduct during the corporate insolvency resolution process by awarding a construction contract to a consortium that had significant overlap with a resolution applicant, without disclosing the resulting conflict of interest to the Committee of Creditors. The Committee held that failure to disclose and mitigate such conflict compromised transparency, fairness, and competitiveness of the resolution process, creating an uneven playing field. It rejected the defence that decisions were based on the Committee of Creditors’ commercial wisdom, noting that such reliance is valid only with full disclosure. The conduct was held to violate statutory duties and the Code of Conduct, including obligations of objectivity and transparency. Accordingly, the Committee upheld the contravention and imposed a penalty of suspension of registration for three years, emphasizing the duty of insolvency professionals to maintain integrity and avoid conflicts.
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
(Disciplinary Committee)
Order No. IBBI/DC/318/2026 | Dated 05 May 2026
This Order is passed pursuant to the Disciplinary Committee (DC) order dated 30 March 2026 bearing No. IBBI/DC/309/2026, in the matter of Mr. Ajit Kumar, Insolvency Professional (Registration No. IBBI/IPA-003/IP-N00062/2017-2018/10548), who is a Professional Member of the Insolvency Professional Agency of Institute of Cost Accountants of India.
1. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) No. COMP-11015/5/2024-IBBI/878/478 dated 24.07.2024 was issued to Mr. Ajit Kumar. The SCN had alleged five different contraventions by Mr. Ajit Kumar in the CIRP of the CD, Three C Projects Private Limited. The SCN was referred to the Disciplinary Committee comprising of two Whole Time Members of the Board viz., Mr. Jayanti Prasad and Mr. Sandip Garg.
2. The said Disciplinary Committee had examined the five contraventions alleged in the SCN against Mr. Ajit Kumar. The members of the DC had unanimous view on all except one of the contraventions which led to differing punishments being awarded by both the members. Accordingly, the matter was referred to this DC for adjudication on the contravention where both the members have opined differently, which is as follows:
Contravention V – Issuance of work order to Ecodel at the time of plan submission: On this specific contravention, there was division of decision amongst the members of the DC. Mr. Jayanti Prasad opined that the conduct of Mr. Ajit Kumar doesn’t seem to be bonafide and vitiated the independent and transparent bidding process and accordingly awarded punishment of suspension of registration of Mr. Ajit Kumar for three years. Whereas Mr. Sandip Garg found that since the awarding of construction contract to Ecodel was already approved by the CoC, the execution of contract could not have influenced the CoC members. He also recommended for re-investigation on the aspect of withdrawal of resolution plan by an earlier PRA. Based on the established contraventions on other counts, he awarded punishment of suspension of registration for a period of two years.
3. The complete record of the DC proceedings in the matter, including the Show Cause Notice (SCN) No. COMP-11015/5/2024-IBBI/878/478 dated 24.07.2024, the responses submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar to the DC, the Order dated 30.03.2026, and all supporting documents have been placed before this DC for consideration and disposal of the present SCN.
4. This DC provided an opportunity of personal hearing to Mr. Ajit Kumar on 27.04.2026 and Mr. Ajit Kumar attended the personal hearing and appeared with his advocate, Mr. Atul Sharma. Mr. Ajit Kumar also submitted additional written submissions on 26.04.2026 and 29.04.2026.
5. This DC notes that with respect to Contravention V, it is alleged in the SCN that Mr. Ajit Kumar granted the ‘Pool and Build Scheme’ contract for completion of the pending construction to the consortium of ‘M/s Nanu Ram Goyal & Co. and M/s Ecodel Projects Pvt. Ltd.’, and issued the work order on 09.04.2024, despite the fact that necessary approvals from NOIDA and UPRERA were pending. The consortium comprising of M/s Nanu Ram Goyal & Co., Mr. Vikram Tuli, or Mr. Vinit Gupta had submitted the resolution plan. The DC notes that Mr. Vinit Gupta was one of the Directors of M/s Ecodel Projects Pvt. Ltd. Hence the consortium to whom contract was awarded and the consortium who submitted the resolution plan had great commonality. Mr. Ajit Kumar invited the resolution applicants for opening of the resolution plans before the CoC members in the 42nd CoC meeting convened on 17.04.2024. It was noted that Mr. Ajit Kumar not only entered into a Pool and Build contract with M/s Nanu Ram Goyal & Co. and M/s Ecodel Projects Pvt. Ltd. without the necessary approval of NOIDA and RERA but also issued the work order at a time when the plan of the consortium of M/s Nanu Ram Goyal & Co., Mr. Vikram Tuli, or Mr. Vinit Gupta was close to submission, thus influencing the CoC members to vote the consortium of M/s Nanu Ram Goyal & Co., Mr. Vikram Tuli, or Mr. Vinit Gupta.
6. In this regard, this DC has perused the submissions made by Mr. Ajit Kumar and the differing views of both the members of the earlier DC. Since these facts are already mentioned in the DC Order dated 30.03.2026, the same are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity and convenience.
7. During the hearing, the DC specifically asked Mr. Ajit Kumar whether he had informed or apprised the CoC that there is potential conflict of interest between the consortium of M/s. Nanu Ram Goyal & Co. and M/s Ecodel Projects Pvt. Ltd., to whom the pool and build contract had been awarded and the consortium of M/s Nanu Ram Goyal & Co., Mr. Vikram Tuli, or Mr. Vinit Gupta consortium, who had submitted the resolution plan, due to great commonality between these two entities, to which Mr. Ajit Kumar replied that he did not inform about such conflict of interest, to the CoC.
8. Since Mr. Ajit Kumar as RP being the Chairman of the CoC, it was incumbent upon Mr. Ajit Kumar to clearly disclose the existence of such conflict of interest and its possible adverse impact on the transparency and competitiveness of the resolution process.
9. This DC further notes that both the Whole-Time Members, in the order dated 30.03.2026, observed that Mr. Ajit Kumar, by allowing the consortium comprising of M/s Nanu Ram Goyal & Co., Mr. Vikram Tuli, or Mr. Vinit Gupta to participate as a prospective resolution applicant, despite the fact that the related consortium comprising of M/s. Nanu Ram Goyal & Co. and M/s Ecodel Projects Pvt. Ltd.,had also been awarded the construction contract of the corporate debtor, which compromised the transparency and competitiveness of the resolution process. Such an arrangement places other PRAs at a disadvantage.
10. Such conduct is inconsistent with the obligations imposed on an Insolvency Professional under the Code of Conduct prescribed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016. In particular, Clause 3 mandates that an Insolvency Professional must act with objectivity in his professional dealings by ensuring that his decisions are made without the influence of any conflicting interests. Clause 14 requires that the Insolvency Professional must not conceal any material information or knowingly make misleading statements.
11. In the present case, the failure of Mr. Ajit Kumar to explicitly identify, disclose, and appropriately mitigate the conflict arising from the dual role of the concerned entity demonstrates a clear breach of the aforesaid provisions. The absence of contemporaneous disclosure coupled with the lack of any documented safeguards to ring-fence the construction activity from the resolution process, reflects a serious deficiency in transparency and due diligence. Such omission not only erodes stakeholder confidence but also impairs the credibility and sanctity of the conduct of CIRP. By allowing a bidder to simultaneously act as a contractor without adequately evaluating and disclosing the attendant risks, Mr. Ajit Kumar failed to exercise the level of professional skepticism, care, and diligence expected of him. The reliance on the commercial wisdom of the CoC and alleged consent of homebuyers does not absolve the Insolvency Professional of his independent statutory duty to ensure fairness, transparency, and absence of bias in the process.
12. This DC is of the opinion that the conduct of Mr. Ajit Kumar has compromised the integrity of the resolution process by allowing a construction contract to be awarded to a consortium led by Nanu Ram Goyal while simultaneously processing a resolution plan from a related consortium involving the same party. This overlapping timeline granted the contractor an unfair competitive advantage over other prospective resolution applicants, effectively undermining the level playing field essential for a transparent bidding process.
13. Mr. Ajit Kumar has argued that these decisions were based on the CoC’s commercial wisdom and homebuyer consent. As the Resolution Professional, who also acts as the Chairman of the CoC meetings, he is under a statutory duty to ensure full, fair, and timely disclosure of all material facts, including any potential conflicts of interest. He cannot take shelter behind the CoC’s approval when such approval was obtained without placing complete and relevant information before it. The defence of reliance on the CoC’s commercial wisdom would have been tenable only if Mr. Ajit Kumar had made a proper and complete disclosure of the potential conflict of interest before the CoC and the CoC, being fully informed, had nevertheless chosen to proceed. In the absence of such disclosure, the integrity and fairness of the process were seriously compromised, attributable to the Resolution Professional’s failure to discharge his statutory duty of full, fair, and timely disclosure.
14. Therefore, this DC holds that Mr. Ajit Kumar, in his capacity as Resolution Professional who acts as Chairman of the CoC, failed to discharge his duty to ensure full, fair, and timely disclosure of a manifest conflict of interest arising from the significant commonality between the consortium awarded the construction contract and the consortium submitting the resolution plan. By permitting such overlapping roles without transparent disclosure or adequate safeguards, he compromised the fairness, integrity, and credibility of the CIRP and created an uneven playing field for other prospective resolution applicants. This failure to identify, disclose, and mitigate the conflict constitutes a clear breach of his statutory and professional obligations under the Code and the Code of Conduct. Accordingly, this DC upholds the contravention of section 208(2)(a) and (e) of the Code, Regulations 7(2)(a) and (h) of the IP Regulations read with Clauses 1, 3 and 14 of Code of Conduct by Mr. Ajit Kumar in this aspect.
15. In view of the foregoing and after considering the established contraventions by Mr. Ajit Kumar in the DC Order dated 30.03.2026 this DC hereby concurs with the decision of Mr. Jayanti Prasad and punishment awarded by him.
16. This Order shall come into force after expiry of 30 days from the date of its issuance.
17. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Insolvency Professional Agency of Institute of Cost Accountants of India where Mr. Ajit Kumar is enrolled as a member.
18. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the Registrar of the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, for information.
19. Accordingly, the show cause notice is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Ravi Mital)
Chairperson
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
Dated: 05 May 2026
Place: New Delhi
