RTI Information Request on Insolvency Valuation Records Rejected by IBBI

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India disposed of a first appeal filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 concerning disclosure of records relating to a complaint about valuation in the corporate insolvency resolution process of Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. The appellant had sought copies of proceedings, findings of the regulator on his complaint against registered valuers, and documents submitted by the valuers. The First Appellate Authority held that file notings related to disposal of the complaint could be provided and accordingly supplied them. However, it clarified that no information had been sought by the Board from the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the grievance. Further, documents and submissions made by the valuers were denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act as they were furnished in commercial confidence and their disclosure could harm the competitive position of the valuers. Since no larger public interest was demonstrated to justify disclosure, the exemption was upheld and the appeal was disposed accordingly.

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: 09th March 2026

Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00004

IN THE MATTER OF

Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad

…Appellant

Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001

… Respondent

1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal dated 12^thFebruary 2026, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).

2. The Appellant has sought the following information pertaining to the registered valuer appointed in the insolvency resolution process of Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt Ltd –

“1. Copy of the entire papers of proceedings on record with IBBI regarding additional information being sought by IBBI under Reg. 6 of IBBI (Grievance and Complaint Procedure) Regulations, 2017, on receipt of the communication from Dhananjay Gaekwad against IBBI Reg Valuator who done valuation of Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt Ltd in CIRP Process.

2. IBBI finding on receipt of the communication from Dhananjay Gaekwad against IBBI Reg Valuator who done valuation of Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt Ltd in CIRP Process.

3. IBBI finding on receipt of the communication from Dhananjay Gaekwad against IBBI Reg Valuator who done valuation of Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt Ltd in CIRP Process.”

The CPIO has replied that the finding on the complaint has been communicated to the Appellant vide letter dated 13.01.2026. Aggrieved with the reply, the CPIO has filed the present Appeal reiterating the information as sought in the impugned RTI Application.

3. I have carefully examined the application, the response of the Respondent and the instant Appeal 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 mention here that the Appellant’s “right to information’ flows from section 3 of the RTI Act and the said right is subject to the 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. Accordingly, the instant Appeal is disposed of as under: –

5. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority

Copy to:
1. Appellant, Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7^thFloor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.

Note # 1

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
(Complaint Division)

File No. COMP-11012/132/2023-IBBI

Subject: Three Grievances of Shri Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad through CPGRAMS in the matter of Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt Limited. Mr. Gaurav Ashok Adukia (IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00457/2017-2018/11293) is Resolution Professional in the matter.

1. The above Grievances as detailed below are placed at ToC.

2. The grievances were placed before the screening committee and they recommended to deal it in IBBI as earlier.

3. In this regard, it is stated that earlier we received similar grievances for revoking the NCLT approval Resolution Plan which is beyond the purview of the Board (attached at reference).

4. Accordingly, if approved, we may close grievances with reply as in dfa.(DFA/8775)

______________________________

Note # 2

______________________________

Note # 3

We may check the issue regarding Valuation raised in Grievance. ______________________________ may investigate.

______________________________

Note # 4

______________________________

In reference to the preceding notes, the Investigation Report is attached for kind consideration / approval.

2. If approved, the draft letter (DFA/9677) to be sent to the complainant may kindly be considered. Submitted for kind consideration / approval please.

______________________________

Note # 6

______________________________

Note # 7

______________________________

Note # 8

Reference:

No actionable material has been found against the IP. However, complainant has repeatedly been alleging that valuation of assets has not been done as per Government Ready reckoner rate.

2. Accordingly, if approved, we may forward file to Valuation division to examine the conduct of valuers in the matter.

________________________________________

Note # 9

____________________________________________________

Note # 10

____________________________________________________

Note # 11

____________________________________________________

Note # 12 

Reference above:

Valuation Division may take note of aggrieved grievances regarding valuation not being done by valuer as per Government ready reckoner rate.

____________________________________________________

Note # 13

____________________________________________________

Note # 14

Noted.

____________________________________________________

Note # 15

Please refer to Note #12 vide which the file was referred to Valuation Division for looking into the allegation of the aggrieved that valuation in the matter has not been done as per Govt. ready reckoner rate. The names of Valuers can be seen from the Investigation Report, placed in the ToC.

2. Valuation Division is requested to provide the status of the examination/investigation/inspection in the matter. The same is urgently required in connection with Grievances received on CPGRAMS Portal.

____________________________________________________

Note # 16

Please refer to Notes above

PUC are the following grievances received from Shri Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad through CPGRAMS portal in the matter of Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt Limited, Corporate Debtor (CD) against Mr. Gaurav Ashok Adukia, Resolution Professional (RP):-

2. The aggrieved has alleged in the grievances that the valuation taken in this matter is significantly lower than the prevailing Ready Reckoner Rate and no supporting documents for valuation were provided by the valuers.

3. In this regard, the grievances were dealt with by the IP Monitoring Division and an investigation was also conducted by IP Monitoring Division. The investigation report is attached here . Upon perusal of the investigation report, the Investigating Officer has observed that “prima facie, there is no actionable material in the allegation”. Accordingly, the grievances were closed.

4. Though, there were no adverse remarks observed against the valuers in the investigation report of the IP Monitoring Division, the file was forwarded to Valuation Division to examine the conduct of valuers in the matter since one of the issues raised by the aggrieved included that the valuation is significantly lower than the prevailing Ready Reckoner Rate and no supporting documents were provided by the valuers.

5. In this regard, it has been observed that valuation in the matter of Tuljabhavani Cold Storage Pvt Limited was conducted by the following 6 Registered Valuers (RV) of IBBI :

(i) Mr. Devendra Patekar – Land & Building

(ii) Mr. Keshav Arvind Chikodi – Land & Building

(iii) Mr. Kedar Chikodi – Plant and Machinery

(iv) Mr. Shardul Kulkarni – Plant and Machinery

(v) Mr. Sanket Deshpande – Securities & Financial Assets

(vi) Mr. Ramnath Nayak – Securities & Financial Assets

6. Since the allegation was related to Land and Building i.e not taking into account the Ready Reckoner Rates while valuing the property, the valuation reports of RV who conducted the valuation for Land and Building i.e Mr Devendra Patekar and Mr Keshav Arvind Chikodi were examined in the light of replies received from the respective RVs as regards the above allegations. The reply of the RV and the observations thereto are as under:

(a) Valuation done by Shri Devendra Patekar: Shri Devendra Patekar, RV has submitted the valuation report dated 18^th March,  2021  for Land & Building and his reply to the allegations vide  email dated 22.10.2025. The RV has submitted that the valuation was carried out by him based on particulars and documents provided by the client, supported by site photographs, screenshots and relevant records. It has been submitted that, in view of non-availability of comparable sale instances and reliable income data for cold storage units, the market approach was adopted for land and the cost approach for the building. The valuer has further submitted that the adopted land rate of Rs. 2,050 per sq. m. is higher than the applicable Ready Reckoner Rate of Rs. 1,110 per sq. m., and is based on local enquiries, MIDC notified rates and online market data. A screenshot of the Ready Reckoner Rate of Department of Registration and Stamps, Government of Maharashtra is also provided in the valuation report.

Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the land valuation rates adopted by the RV is higher than the applicable Ready Reckoner Rates. Therefore, the allegations of valuation of Ready Reckoner Rates do not hold any merit.

(b) Valuation done by Shri Keshav Arvind Chikodi: Shri Keshav Arvind Chikodi has submitted the valuation report dated  21^st February 2021 and his reply to the allegations vid email  dated 03.11.2025. The RV has submitted that the valuation was based on information and documents provided by the Insolvency Professional, physical site inspection, analysis of prevailing market conditions and data available on government portals and reputed real estate websites. It has been stated that due to the specialised nature of cold storage buildings and absence of valid income information, the market approach for land and cost approach for building were adopted. The adopted land rate of Rs. 2,100 per sq. m. is higher than both the MIDC notified rate and the Ready Reckoner Rate of Rs. 1,110 per sq. m. The valuer has also submitted that Ready Reckoner rates are indicative and primarily intended for stamp duty purposes and may not reflect actual market rates. A screenshot of the Ready Reckoner Rate as available from the website of Department of Registration and Stamps, Government of Maharashtrais also provided in the valuation report.

As has been observed, the land valuation rates adopted by the RV is higher than the applicable Ready Reckoner Rates, the allegations of valuation of Ready Reckoner Rates do not hold any merit.

7. In view of the above, the allegation of undervaluation viz a viz the Ready Reckoner Rates, prima facie, do not hold any merit and accordingly it is recommended for closure of the grievance.

8. Further, we may send a reply to the aggrieved as per DFA/13122 placed in draft section. Submitted for consideration and approval, please.

_________________

Note # 17

_________________

Note # 18

_________________

Note # 19

_________________

Note # 20

Please refer to Notes above

The matter has been examined in this Division. The allegation of undervaluation viz a viz the Ready Reckoner Rates, prima facie, do not hold any merit and accordingly it is recommended for closure of the grievance.A reply letter dated 13th January 2026 has been issued to the aggrieved.

2. The file is returned to IP Monitoring Division for information and record.