This order, dated October 27, 2025, addresses an appeal filed by Naveen Bhatnagar under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI). The appellant sought information regarding the number of cases dealt with by NCLTs and NCLAT under the cross-border insolvency framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), including the number and amount of personal guarantors and corporate debtors involved. The CPIO had responded by stating that the Code does not currently have a comprehensive cross-border insolvency framework. Aggrieved, the appellant cited known cases like Jet Airways, Essar Steel, and Videocon Industries as evidence of such matters being handled. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) noted that while these cases did involve cross-border aspects, they were dealt with by courts devising their own protocols, as a statutorily defined cross-border insolvency framework under Section 240C of the Code is yet to be notified by the Central Government. Given that the requested information (data/statistics on cross-border cases under a formal framework) is not available on record with the public authority in the requested form, the FAA found the CPIO’s reply appropriate and consequently disposed of the appeal.
BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
Dated: 27th October 2025
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000121
IN THE MATTER OF
Naveen Bhatnagar
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal dated 24th September 2025, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Since the Appeal required detailed analysis of different legal provisions, same is disposed of within 45 days as enshrined under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.
2. The Appellant had sought information on the number of cases as dealt by the NCLTs and NCLAT under the cross-border insolvency framework of the Code. Moreover, the Appellant sought the number and respective amount of personal guarantors and corporate debtors involved within cross-border insolvency framework in India. The CPIO has stated that the Code does not possess a comprehensive framework of cross-border insolvency as of now. Aggrieved with the same, the Appellant has filed the instant Appeal stating the following, “As per information in public knowledge, media there are 3 cases in my knowledge on Cross Border insolvency. There will be more such cases in IBBI knowledge for sure. These cases were dealt with by the respective NCLT Tribunals on PAN India basis. Namely, State Bank of India v. Jet Airways India Ltd., Company Petition No. IB 2205 MB 2019 NCLT, Mumbai Bench. Again, Standard Chartered Bank v. Essar Steel India Ltd., Company Petition No. 39 of 2017 NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench. Finally, Bank of New York Mellon v. Videocon Industries Ltd., Company Petition No. 05 of 2018 NCLT, Mumbai Bench. IBBI is the Nodal Custodian of Public Assets, Records, more particularly, on Insolvency matters. It is therefore all the more necessary for IBBI to provide information requested, else provide guidance therefor. Reiterate, once again to provide information, documents, etc. inter alia, the Number and Amount of Personal Guarantors therein, as also, Corporate Guarantee furnished. Kindly appreciate there is no personal information sought in these 3 cases which is in IBBI domain. Also, to provide similar information related to other cases in IBBI knowledge, so far.”
3. I have carefully examined the applications, the responses of the Respondent and the Appeals and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. In terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act ‘information’ means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” It is pertinent to note that the Appellant’s “right to information’ flows from section 3 of the RTI Act and the said right is subject to other provisions of the Act. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines the “right to information” in term of information accessible under the Act which is held by or is under the control of a public authority. Thus, if the public authority holds any information in the form of data, statistics, abstracts, etc. an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
4. It is pertinent to note that the cases, as enumerated by the Appellant in the impugned Appeal, have not been dealt under a statutorily defined framework under the Code. The Courts have devised their cross-border insolvency protocol based on the facts and circumstances unique to their cases. While the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill, 2025 has empowered the Central Government to implement cross-border insolvency under Section 240C of the Code, the same has not been notified as of now. Thus, the information is not available on record and in view of the aforesaid observations, the reply of the CPIO does not merit any interference.
5. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
