IBBI Suspends Partha Sarathy Sarkar's IP Registration for Conducting Innovari Technologies' CIRP in 'Brazen Manner'
Moneylife Digital Team 28 September 2023
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI/Board) has suspended the registration of insolvency professional (IP) Partha Sarathy Sarkar for two years after finding that he had conducted the entire corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Innovari Technologies Pvt Ltd (corporate debtor-CD) in a 'brazen manner', without having due regard to the provisions of the IBBI code of conduct (Code) and the regulations. 
In an order passed earlier this month, Sudhaker Shukla, a whole-time member (WTM) of IBBI, says, "The disciplinary committee of IBBI notes that the IP has shown utter disregard and contempt towards the established monitoring activity of the Board. Rather than cooperating with the inspecting authority (IA) in effectively carrying out of the statutorily mandated monitoring functions of the Board, the IP had tried to evade his duties entrusted on him under the Code and regulations on one pretext or the other. Actions, bereft of logic, taken in utter disregard to laid down compliances are against the professional conduct and ought to be avoided by the IP."
"Even during the hearing, Mr Sarkar, the IP appeared to be excessively aggressive and used foul and contemptuous language casting allegations against all the officers of the Board dealing with the case and also tried to challenge the locus of the DC to hear the case despite clear directions of the High Court of Bombay," the order says. 
Further, IBBI noted that as per the provisions of the Code, the IP is required to form an opinion within 75 days of the insolvency commencement date (ICD), make a determination within 115 days of ICD and file an application before the adjudicating authority (AA) within 135 days of ICD. However, in the case of Innovari Technologies, IBBI observed that Mr Sarkar, the IP, has taken more than twice the permissible time to form the opinion. "Even if he had some corroborative evidence, he was required to hand over the details to the liquidator of the CD who could have pursued these transactions."
During the hearing, Mr Sarkar contended that Regulation 17(1) of CIRP Regulations nowhere mandates that while filing a report certifying the formation of a committee of creditors (CoC) with the AA, a list of creditors containing certain mandatory information is to be mentioned.
However, IBBI elucidated that in the absence of any specific provision, an interim resolution professional (IRP) is not expected to maintain different lists of creditors for different purposes. It noted that "the IP has also not provided any document to the IA to prove otherwise that the list of creditors is maintained in accordance with Regulation 13. Therefore, the reliance of IA on the list of creditors submitted by the IP to the AA along with the report certifying the constitution of the committee is valid." 
Opining that it is plain for anyone willing to see that the IP has not done anything to show that he intended to complete the CIRP with required diligence, IBBI emphasised that continuing with the assignment without following the due processes establishes wilful contravention of procedures provided in the Code. 
"An IP has a larger responsibility owed towards the whole insolvency ecosystem…The acts of an insolvency professional should, therefore, be in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct of IBBI," the order concludes.
1 month ago
@Moneylife: Please get your facts corrected from IBBI website...
Replied to adv.pratiksarkar comment 1 month ago
Moneylife publishes factual information based on official releases. In this case, the information was published by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India -IBBI and is available in the public domain. Here is the link to the order. https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/order/b2445...

As you may be aware, last week, in the Nithari serial killing case, the Allahabad HC acquitted the two accused. By your comments and logic (?), are you saying that all the previous judgements, including those from the Supreme Court, in the Nithari case are also not factual?

Further, you seem to be not aware of how news media work. Otherwise, you or Mr Partha Sarathy Sarkar would have contacted us with the updated information, which we are not privy to, and requested an update of the news article. However, there was no attempt made by someone like you who uses the 'adv' prefix or by Mr Sarkar to communicate with us until your comment, except blaming Moneylife.

Having said that, the fact remains that it is as per the order by IBBI published on 13 September 2023 and available in the public domain as of 22 October 2023.
Replied to MDT comment 1 month ago
Thanks for sharing the information that this so-called news of suspension is based on 'official release', which also corroborates that IBBI has not officially released the information that its actions have been challenged & also, also a major fact which IBBI has not disclosed to the public is that it has restored the registration & Authorization For Assignment. You are right, IBBI officials must be blamed & not Moneylife for not making the updated information public.

Referring to your report on Nithari, I have not commented anything on Nithari or any of its related reports or rulings, and thus I request @Moneylife, not to drag my name into anything, which I am not associating myself with.

I may not know, how news media works. But if this is a demonstration of the working of news media that later updates on press releases are kept hidden from the public domain, then I am convinced how fake news works...
Replied to pratikpsarkar comment 1 month ago
We reiterate, that there was no attempt made by Mr Sarkar or any of his representatives to communicate with us with updated information except your comments blaming Moneylife.

When we are not even privy to any updates or information that either Mr Sarkar or his representatives may possess, how can we keep it 'hidden'? Whatever information is available in the public domain, we have published.
Replied to MDT comment 1 month ago
I reiterate that I am not blaming @Moneylife.
2 months ago
Why 2 years suspension? The IP should have been suspended for 5 years concurrently with suspension of his Certificate of Practice by the respective ICSI or ICAI or ICWAI.
Replied to aeon70 comment 1 month ago
Kindly get your facts corrected... Even the proceedings basis which the order was passed is under challenge...
Replied to adv.pratiksarkar comment 1 month ago
The fact remains that it is as per the order by IBBI published on 13 September 2023 and available in the public domain as of 22 October 2023. Here is the link of IBBI order https://ibbi.gov.in//uploads/order/b244525b9741abd4d6aa908bfb436a87.pdf
Replied to MDT comment 1 month ago
The operation of this order is stayed...
2 months ago
Without going in the present case, IBBI is also ruthlessly acting against the IPs and also is not friendly to the cause of the IPs despite their knocking on the doors of the IBBI. IBBI itself invariably is in violations of S220 & R12 on the Regulations on Inspection and Investigations. Once such an Order is given by the DC, IBBI sees to it that by hook or crook, the suffering IPs do not get relief even if it is genuine case of an IP which requires relief.
Free Helpline
Legal Credit