Mr. Navneet Gupta Insolvency ... vs Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Navneet Gupta Insolvency Professional ...Appellant Versus Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India ...Respondent

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli, Ms. Palak Kalra and Ms. Shruti Srivastava, Advocates.

Mr. Deepak Khosla, Advocate for the Applicant

For Respondent : Mr. Naveen Pawah, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Verma, Mr. Nikhil Thakur and Ms. Kriti, Advocates.

Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Mr. Zain A. Khan, Mr. Dev Aaryan, Mohd. Abran Khan, Mr. Manoranjan Nayak and Mr. Nakul Mohta, Advocates.

ORDER

Per Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)

1. Before us, under consideration are the two interlocutory applications,

being I.A. Nos. 6680 of 2026 and 6679 of 2026, preferred by Mr. Ajmair

Singh Bhullar and Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora respectively. By virtue of these

applications, the Applicant has sought recall of the Order dated 10.09.2026

that was passed in I.A. No. 6230 of 2026, preferred by the Applicant himself

i.e., Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora, seeking himself to be impleaded in the

proceedings of the Company Appeal, which had already stood rejected. While Mr. Ajmair Singh Bhullar, sought his limited impleadment in stay

application being I.A. No. 6168 of 2026, while he is not party to Company

Appeal.

2. It becomes indispensable for us to directly consider the application

bearing I.A. No. 6679 of 2026, itself without considering the background and

the manner in which the proceedings have been traversed by the Applicant.

3. The Company Appeal had been preferred by Mr. Navneet Gupta, the

Insolvency Resolution Professional, wherein the IBBI, the Regulator while

considering the response of Appellant, as submitted in response to the Show

Cause Notice issued to him, for his professional misconduct and dereliction

in discharge of duties as a professional by way of Show Cause Notice (SCN)

No. COMP/11011/110/2025-IBBI/1847/1797 dated 28.11.2025, for taking

Penal action as per the provisions contained in the IBBI (Grievance and

Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations, 2017, had passed the

impugned Order. Learned IBBI upon establishment of charge against the

Appellant had proceeded to pass the following Order on 21.08.2026 which

has been impugned by the Appellant:

"3.1. The DC in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 220 of the Code read with Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017 hereby suspends the registration of Mr. Navneet Gupta (Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00361/2017- 18/10619) for a period of one year.

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 2 of 34 3.2. This Order shall come into force on expiry of 30 days from the date of its issue.

3.3. A copy of this order shall be sent to the CoC of all the corporate debtors in which Mr. Navneet Gupta is providing his services. The CoC of the respective corporate debtors shall replace Mr. Navneet Gupta with another Resolution Professional in terms of Section 27 of the Code."

4. Consequent to the establishment of set of allegations relating to

proportional misconduct the Resolution Professional and the observations

which have been made by the Disciplinary Committee, in exercise of its

statutory powers conferred to it under Section 220 of the Code, which is to

be read with Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation)

Regulations, 2017, suspended the registration of Mr. Navneet Gupta, the

IRP (Appellant), for a period of one year.

5. The Order, in itself, has been directed to be made effective after the

expiry of 30 days from the date of its issuance. What would be more

concerning would be the observations made in Para No. 3.3 of the impugned

Order, which has been argued by the counsel for the parties, whereby the

copy of the Order of suspending the licence of the IRP, was directed to be

sent to the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and to all the Corporate Debtors

(CDs) to which Mr. Navneet Gupta was providing his services as IRP.

6. Thereafter, it was also directed that the respective CoC of the

Corporate Debtor, shall be placing the Order to the respective CoC of which

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 3 of 34 of Mr. Navneet Gupta was RP for replacing him with another Resolution

Professional in terms of Section 27 of the Code. Section 27 of the Code

prescribes for the replacement of the Resolution Professional by the CoC

upon satisfaction of certain terms and conditions, which has been given in

the Order itself, requiring for conditions for calling for the replacement,

suspension or removal of the Resolution Professional by the CoC. In other

words, the observation made in Para 3.3 of the impugned Order, that would

have only taken effect subject to satisfaction of the conditions contained

under Section 27 of the Code.

7. At this stage, we are not venturing on the merits of the observations

made in the impugned Order, as extracted above, or its inter se play about

its enforceability under Section 27 of the IBC qua the professional conduct

of Appellant, which is to be decided in the Company Appeal.

8. One Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora (the Appellant) is shown to have

preferred I.A. No. 6230 of 2026. In the application thus preferred by him on

01.09.2026, Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora prayed that he may be permitted to

be impleaded in the proceedings of the Company Appeal and to permit the

Applicant to exercise his powers under Order I Rule 8A of CPC to participate

in the proceedings in a representative capacity. The relief as modulated by

Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora in, his I.A. No. 6230 of 2026 is extracted

hereunder:-

"That in view of the above facts and circumstances of the matter, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may:

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 4 of 34 i. Allow impleadment of the applicant as a Respondent in the present appeal.

ii. INTERIM RELIEF (1): Permit the applicant the exercise of his right under Order I (Rule 8A) of the CPC to take such further part in oral arguments on the questions of law that arise in these proceedings as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

iii.INTERIM RELIEF (2): Permit the power of Attorney Holder to file a copy of the Power-of-Attorney executed in favour of Mr. Taman Deep Singh by Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora, that has already been filed with multiple judicial forums, including Hon'ble NCLT (Chandigarh), on or before 02-09-2026 before this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal.

iv. Pass ex parte orders on the above prayers

v. Any further interim order or direction which this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the appellant."

9. If we see the interim relief, that was sought therein was in context of

the provisions contained under Order I Rule 8A of the CPC, which reads as

under:-

"8A. Power of Court to permit a person or body of persons to present opinion or to take part in the proceedings.--While trying a suit, the Court may, if satisfied that a person or body of persons is interested in any question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow that person

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 5 of 34 or body of persons to present his or its opinion on that question of law, permit that person or body of persons to present such opinion and to take such part in the proceedings of the suit as the Court may specify."

10. Primarily the Applicant wanted to contest the proceedings of Company

Petition in the representative capacity, as provided by Order I Rule 8A of

CPC. This particular nature of contest of proceedings under the I&B Code is

unknown to law, more particularly when the proceedings were against

Resolution Professional, for his misconduct, in these proceedings there

cannot be any such concept of contesting proceedings in a representative

capacity.

11. Rule 8A of Order I of CPC, was inserted by Act No. 104 of 1976, which

granted the power to the Court to permit a person or a body of persons to

present an opinion or to take part in the proceedings. The provisions of

Order I Rule 8A is not akin to Order I Rule 10 provides for impleadment, it

only contemplate to be attracted when the Court draws an opinion or solicits

to participate, its only when a person or body of persons is "interested in

any question". Before we venture further, we could see that, upon perusal of

records that the application that was preferred was under a Power of

Attorney, that was executed on 02.09.2026, as prescribed in the note clause

of the application itself. The Power of Attorney in original is on record before

various judicial forums, including NCLT Chandigarh, and it was marked

that copy would be filed with NCLAT by 02.09.2026 positively. We make it

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 6 of 34 clear that till the date of passing of the Order i.e., dated 10.09.2026 which

has been sought to be recalled, this Power of Attorney was never placed on

record of I.A. No. 6230 of 2026 in order to justify the justification of

Vakalatnama of Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora and the authority vested in him

under the Power of Attorney to pursue the proceedings on behalf of the

executant Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Taman Deep Singh. Thus the

application itself was not competent to be considered under is the absence

of valid Power of Attorney being placed on record.

12. This application, i.e., I.A. No. 6230 of 2026, came up for consideration

before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and was decided by an Order

dated 10.09.2026, whereby the application was rejected on the ground that

the Applicant had no right whatsoever to pursue the proceedings either

individually or in representative capacity and the same was accordingly

dismissed. What could be seen from the Order Sheet, that the proceedings

were thereafter taken up on 16.09.2026 and, during the intervening period,

Applicant Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora, filed a recall application on 14.09.2026,

being I.A. No. 6679 of 2026 along with I.A. No. 6680 of 2026, which was

filed by Mr. Ajmair Singh Bhullar wherein: (1) in I.A. No. 6679 of 2026, the

Applicant, Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora, prayed for recalling of the Order dated

10.09.2026 that was passed in I.A. No. 6230 of 2026; (2) In I.A. No. 6680 of

2026, preferred by Mr. Ajmair Singh Bhullar, a prayer was made for to

implead the Applicant, as a limited Respondent only in I.A. No. 6168 of 2026

for grant of interim relief limited for adjudication of prayer No. (iii) & (iv)

thereof.

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 7 of 34

13. This application for recall of Order 10.09.2026, came up for

consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench and, owing to the fact that the

recall application itself was being pressed upon as if it was an argument

being extended for a regular Appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench declined to hear

the application, and thus it was nominated to us. Monitoring of time to hear

a matter of this nature and that too on a recall is difficult owing to the

expectation of the members of the Bar and at time atrociousness too, which

was exercised by the Applicant. Thus the Co-ordinate Bench, on

17.09.2026, declined to hear because of the fact that the counsel for the

Applicant, persisted hearing the matter on recall application, which was

already argued at length, despite taking note of the fact that there were

other matters pending before the Tribunal which were listed on board.

Hence, the Tribunal was constrained to release the matter, to avoid any

embarrassment in the court proceedings.

14. When the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Officiating

Chairperson, the Company Appeal has been nominated before us. The

learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Deepak Khosla for the Applicant Mr.

Haravtar Singh Arora, has pressed his application I.A. No. 6679 of 2026 and

I.A. No. 6680 of 2026 from the following perspectives: -

a. That a fraud has been played upon the Tribunal,

b. while passing the Order dated 10.09.2026; hence, it deserves to be

recalled.

c. Lack of jurisdiction.

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 8 of 34

15. We make it very clear that at this point of time itself that when C.A.

(AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 was being considered with the two IA's before

the learned Tribunal on 10.09.2026, the learned counsel on behalf of the

Applicant had represented the Applicant with all diligence and perseverance

for which he is known, and was heard to quite an extent on 10.09.2026. It is

at a much belated stage that the Appellant has come with a recall

application by filing the same on 14.09.2026, primarily on the ground (1)

that the order dated 10.09.2026 is actuated by fraud; (2) lack of jurisdiction.

16. The aspect of fraud has been an oriented venture, argued by the

learned counsel for the Applicant to the recall application, on the ground

that when the reply was filed by the Appellant in objection to I.A. No. 6230

of 2026, the reply was supported by an affidavit, which the Applicant to I.A.

No. 6679 of 2026 contends that, because the affidavit filed in support

thereto was a fraudulent affidavit, it would vitiate the entire proceedings and

thus the reply given by the Appellant, should not have been taken into

consideration by the learned Tribunal while passing the Order dated

10.09.2026, rejecting I.A. No. 1620 of 2026, that was filed by the Applicant,

Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora, under Order I Rule 8A of CPC, for getting himself

impleaded.

17. We make it very clear at this juncture itself that the ground of fraud,

as articulated now to be argued by the learned counsel for the Applicant,

owing to the affidavit filed in support of reply to I.A. No. 6230 of 2026, is not

pleading anything or any allegation of fraud, with regard to any fraud in the

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 9 of 34 pleading of the application or the reply, but rather had exclusively confined

his arguments upon the affidavit itself and the way it has been sworn. The

counsel for the Applicant to I.A. No. 6679 of 2026, further submits that the

notarized affidavit filed in support of the reply to the impleadment

application, being I.A. No. 6230 of 2026, is not in consonance with Rule 72

of the NCLT Rules, the objection by Applicant was because of the fact that

since the affidavit only speaks about "attestation as identified" and it does

not mention that it was "sworn" on oath. Thus, he submits that contents of

the affidavit in reply could not be taken into consideration for the purposes

of deciding I.A. No. 6230 of 2026 because there was a fraud played by the

Appellant, while filing the reply on 02.09.2026 to I.A. No. 6230 of 2026 filed

for impleadment invoking Order I Rule 8A of CPC.

18. The counsel for the Applicant submits that much credence cannot be

placed on the contents of para 2 of the affidavit, which explains as to how

the contents have been read and understood by the deponent. In relation

thereto, the learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that because of the

fact that the notarized affidavit dated 02.09.2026 only mentions

"attestation" and it is not a "swearing", it cannot be treated as an affidavit.

19. This contention raised by the learned counsel for the Applicant now to

support his recall application is not acceptable by us, and that too when for

the purpose of establishing the so-called theory of fraud as vehemently

argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant is exclusively rather only

based upon the contents of the reply affidavit filed by the Appellant, and

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 10 of 34 more particularly when the contents of the affidavit itself is not denied,

particularly in relation to the pleadings raised therein.

20. So far as the NCLAT Rules are concerned, the provisions in relation to

the affidavit is contained under Part-XI of the NCLAT Rules. Part-XI reads as

under:-

"67. Title of affidavits.-

Every affidavit shall be titled as "Before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal." followed by the cause title of the application or other proceeding in which the affidavit is sought to be used.

68. Form and contents of the affidavit.- The affidavit as per Form NCLAT-4 shall conform to the requirements of order XIX, rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908).

69. Persons authorised to attest.- Affidavits shall be sworn or affirmed before an Advocate or Notary, who shall affix his official seal.

70. Affidavits of illiterate, visually challenged persons.- Where an affidavit is sworn or affirmed by any person who appears to be illiterate, visually challenged or unacquainted with the language in which the affidavit is written shall be in Form NCLAT-5, the attestor shall certify that the affidavit was read, explained or translated by him or in his presence to the deponent and that he seemed to understand it, and made his signature or mark in the presence of the attestor.

71. Identification of deponent.-

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 11 of 34 If the deponent is not known to the attestor, his identity shall be testified by a person known to him and the person identifying shall affix his signature in token thereof.

72. Annexures to the affidavit.-

(1) Document accompanying an affidavit shall be referred to therein as Annexure number and the attestor shall make the endorsement thereon that this is the document marked putting the Annexure number in the affidavit. (2) The attestor shall sign therein and shall mention the name and his designation."

21. The learned counsel for the Applicant had restricted his argument

from the perspective of Rule 72 of the NCLAT Rules, contending thereof that

the affidavit filed in support of the reply/objection, to I.A. No. 6230 of 2026

cannot be read for the purposes of deciding I.A. No. 6230 of 2026 preferred

by the Applicant for his impleadment in Company Petition (AT) (Ins.) No.

1612 of 2026. In order to deal with the argument extended by the learned

counsel for the Applicant, we will have to read the provision of Part-XI in

itself. The form and the nature of the affidavit, as contemplated under Part-

XI of the Rules, prescribes that it has to be in accordance with Order XIX

Rule 3 of the CPC. The purport of Order XIX Rule 3, which finds place under

Rule 68 of the NCLAT Rules, provides as to what and how the contents of

the affidavit would be. That was only for the purposes of verification of fact

as a deponent and its knowledge, to the deponent, regards to the contents,

to make the contents of affidavit judicially acceptable, and attach

truthfulness to the contents of the affidavit and not only the format of it.

Meaning thereby that the allegation of fraud in the affidavit in itself only

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 12 of 34 becomes relevant when the contents of the supporting affidavit are also

argued to be based upon fraud and falsity.

Order 19 Rule 3: -

"3. Matters to which affidavits shall be confined. --

(1) Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted: provided that the grounds thereof are stated.

(2) The costs of every affidavit which shall unnecessarily set forth matters of hearsay or argumentative matter, or copies of or extracts from documents, shall (unless the Court otherwise directs) be paid by the party filing the same."

22. According to Order XIX Rule 3, as made applicable by Rule 68 of the

NCLAT Rules, its only to attach fairness to the knowledge of the contents,

which has to be proved to be made acceptable in judicial proceedings by

affidavit, and when, in the instant case, the contents of the reply itself are

not denied by the Applicant Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora, the affidavit filed in

support thereto would be treated to be a rectifiable defect and it would not

malign the entire proceeding which already stands decided on merits, which

could sustain or permit the recall application preferred by the Appellant

seeking recall of the Order dated 10.09.2026, which in itself was a contested

and concluded proceedings on merits.

23. Reverting back to the contents of Part-XI of the NCLAT Rules, Rule 72,

if it exclusively pertains to "verification of a document" accompanying an

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 13 of 34 affidavit, for which an attestor has to make an endorsement that the

documents marked in Annexures are true in their contents. Rule 72 in itself

only speaks about an "attestation", which was a requirement under law,

which, in the instant case, stood satisfied by the affidavit of 02.09.2026.

Hence, the condition of attestation made by the Notary in the affidavit of

02.09.2026, as provided under Rule 72 of the NCLAT Rules, was satisfied.

24. Even in accordance with prescription of the format, prescribed for the

affidavits as per the NCLAT Rules, as contemplated under Rule 68, it

provides hereunder: -

"Form NCLAT-4 [See Rule 68] IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ______________BENCH Appeal/Petition/ /No. of 20_________ Appellant/Applicant vs Respondent/s AFFIDAVIT I, .................................. aged...................... years, son/daughter/wife of ............ ..........................(name and occupation of the deponent)..................................... residing at (Full address) ........................................do hereby swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm and state as follows: Para. 1 Para. 2 Para. 3 ...................................... Contents of Paragraphs Nos. ......................are within my personal knowledge and contents of Paragraphs Nos...............are based on information received by me which I believe the same to be true (state the source of information wherever possible and the grounds for belief, if any ).

Place : Signature of the Deponent Date : Name in Block Letters

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 14 of 34 No. of corrections on page nos.

Identified by: Before me *.............................................................................

Sworn/solemnly affirmed before me on this the .......................day of ...200.............

Signature (Name and Designation of the Attesting Authority with Seal)

*To add endorsement in Form No. when necessary"

25. This format of the affidavit too, if it is read in consonance with Part-XI,

Form NCLAT-4, issued under Rule 68, prescribes the format of the affidavit,

which has been given hereinabove. The counsel for the Applicant has argued

there was no "swearing" in the affidavit filed with the reply by the Appellant

in opposition to the Impleadment Application No. 6230 of 2026. This

argument is not acceptable, also for the reason that, according to the format

of the affidavit given above, under NCLAT Form-4, it does not speak about

swearing of an affidavit; it only speaks about attestation of the affidavit. In

that eventuality too, the affidavit filed by the Appellant in reply to the

impleadment application cannot be falsified to be actuated by fraud to

deceive in any manner whatsoever.

26. A provision of law has to be pragmatically read in its totality to lead to

its logical objective. The authority of authorization given to a person under

Rule 69 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 gives an option that the affidavit shall be

"sworn or affirmed" before an officer or a Notary Public. Since the present

affidavit dated 02.09.2026 was an affidavit attested by the Notary, as

permitted under Rule 69 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 it cannot be said that

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 15 of 34 the affidavit dated 02.09.2026 was a fraudulent document or that it was

vitiated by its contents too, in the light of the provisions contained under

Order XIX Rule 3 of the CPC, as attracted by Rule 68 of the NCLAT Rules.

27. Even in the absence of swearing (though not specifically required), the

attestation exclusively in itself could still be permissible to read the affidavit

in support of an application, which, in the instant case, was an accepted

document by the Applicant to the recall application having contested upon it

on merits. More glaringly, when the purpose of the affidavit, as per the

language of Part-XI of the NCLAT Rules, 2016 is to provide authenticity to

the affidavit and its contents, when the contents themselves are not denied

by the Applicant even today in an application for recall preferred even today,

the affidavit filed in support thereto cannot itself be rendered to be bad in

the eyes of law because no element of fraud exists so far as the necessity of

swearing of contents of affidavit, as argued by the learned counsel for the

Applicant, is concerned.

28. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant

regarding the necessity of swearing is not acceptable, once again for the

reason that, according to Rules 69 and 70 of NCLAT Rules, 2016 it provides

that an affidavit has to be "sworn or affirmed", which means that it could be

either way. The affidavit could be taken and considered in the proceedings,

whether it is sworn or affirmed. Here, the use of the word "or" in between

the expressions given in Rules 69 and 70 is not to be read as the word

"and". Hence, either swearing of an affidavit or attestation of an affidavit in

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 16 of 34 accordance with Part-XI of the Rules would still be an acceptable attestation

for reading a document for the purposes of the proceedings.

29. The reference made to Rule 72 by the learned counsel for the

Applicant is absolutely untenable because there is no fraud as such, and

the same cannot be accepted by this Tribunal while exercising our powers

for consideration of recall application, seeking recall of the Order, which is

restricted to the Order in itself, and more particularly when the contents of

the reply and the supporting affidavit are not denied by the Applicant's

counsel.

30. As we have already observed, the Appellant before this Tribunal, who

is an RP, was as against the Order of suspension of the licence for a period

of one year in pursuance of the action taken against him by the Disciplinary

Committee. The Applicant, in the capacity of being the shareholder, Director

or promoter of a third entity, not party to the proceedings, cannot be said to

be at all necessary party in the absence of whom the disciplinary

proceedings against the Appellant could not be decided because the

Applicants claim would not be falling under or within the ambit of Order I

Rule 8A of the CPC, as prayed for by the Applicant.

31. As we have already observed, the principal proceedings as against the

Appellant had been in the shape of disciplinary proceedings drawn against

him in accordance with Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Inspection and

Investigation) Regulations, 2017. It was altogether a different subject that

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 17 of 34 was under consideration in the Company Appeal. Which had no nexus to

the stand taken by the Applicant in his impleadment application.

32. The application for intervention/impleadment, though it was bad in

law because it was not supported with the valid Power of Attorney, as

mentioned in the note clause of the application, which was not supplied

even till the date when the Order was passed, was also not maintainable on

the said ground.

33. Besides that, since the intervention was being sought by the Applicant

because of the fact that it impacts upon the liquidation proceedings drawn

as against M/s James Hotel Limited, of which the Applicant claims himself

to be the Director, Promoter, shareholder, and which has already been

placed under liquidation in a pending proceeding, CP (IB) No. 15 of 2026,

Punjab National Bank versus James Hotel, in which the present Appellant

has been appointed as a liquidator, it is contended by the Appellant that his

rights would also be affected because of the impugned Order, which is the

subject matter of challenge in the instant Company Appeal.

34. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant that, because of

the observations made in Para 3.3 of the impugned Order, since there

happens to be a suspension of the Appellant from carrying out any

liquidation proceedings in relation to other entities, it may affect the

proceedings of the liquidation of M/s James Hotel Limited. For that purpose,

Para 3.3 of the impugned Order has to be read together with the first part of

Para 3.3.

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 18 of 34

35. The copy of the Order suspending the licence of the IRP for a period of

two years under Section 220 of the Code, to be read with Regulation 13,

does not at all affect any right of the Applicant for the reason being that the

direction contained in the second part of Para 3.3 of the Order was that the

CoC of the respective CDs shall replace Mr. Navneet Gupta with another

Resolution Professional in accordance with Section 27 of the Code.

36. The Applicant is not a member of the CoC for whom the direction was

issued as per Para 3.3 of the impugned Order for replacing the Resolution

Professional. As such, since the Appellant is not part of the CoC to whom

the direction has been issued for removal of the Resolution Professional, the

Applicant does not become a necessary party at all to be impleaded what to

say about recall of Order rejecting his impleadment. Thus, it has been

rightly observed in the Order dated 10.09.2026, the Applicant would not be

necessary party whose presence would be at all needed to decide the

Company Appeal.

37. Because of the fact that there is no fraud which is apparently

established, merely because of the execution of the affidavit, the same is not

accepted by this Tribunal. Thus the recall though not permissible cannot be

permitted to be ventured on its merits and deserves rejection.

38. The argument in the context of Para 3.3, as raised by the Appellant,

that it concerns him also is absolutely unfounded, because it was a general

direction that was issued for a restraint as against the Appellant from

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 19 of 34 carrying out any proceedings as an Resolution Professional. However, that is

to be exercised subject to certain riders, where the CoC of the respective

CDs were supposed to restrain the Appellant from functioning as an IRP or a

Resolution Professional in the light of the provisions contained under

Section 27 of the Code.

39. This direction given in Para 3.3 was not unfettered, as it was not

specifically confined to the Applicant; rather, it was restricted for complying

with the provisions contained under Section 27 of the Code. Hence, this in

itself too, will not entitle the Applicant to be impleaded, as argued by the

counsel for the Applicant, that he becomes a necessary party, to the

proceedings of this Company Appeal.

40. The rejection of his impleadment by an Order dated 10.09.2026 is

backed by the fact that no aspect of fraud is made out by the Applicant as

against the Order dated 10.09.2026, particularly in relation to the reply

submitted by the Appellant to the impleadment application. The plea of

fraud fails, more particularly when the plea of fraud attempts to enter de

novo into the merits of the decision taken on merits, i.e., the Order dated

10.09.2026. The same cannot be exercised when fraud itself is not

established.

41. The learned counsel for the Applicant to the recall application has

primarily concentrated his argument from two perspectives, the one which

we have already dealt with hereinabove, with regards the aspect of fraud. To

attract those principles of fraud, it is necessary that the act complained of

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 20 of 34 must satisfy the ingredients required to establish fraud. Merely a projected

plea by the counsel for the Applicant alleging bald allegation of fraud,

cannot, in itself, lead to a conclusion that it is a fraud effecting merits, and

more particularly when it is being generated by professional acumen of the

counsel, in order to sustain the application for recall, which otherwise is not

permissible under law, so far as it relates to the proceedings under the IBC,

where a recall cannot be camouflaged to be adopted as a recourse of review.

42. For filing a recall on the basis of fraud, it is necessary for the

Applicant to establish the parameters required to be satisfied to conclude

that it is a fraud on fact effecting decision. Fraud, in its normal connotation,

is a wrongful and criminal deception. It is intended to result in financial or

personal gain. In the instant case, none of the ingredients was intended to

be attain either a financial or personal gain by the Appellant herein, in

whose favour the Order has been passed on an intervention application

preferred by the Applicant, are established.

43. The prime object for fraud is that it has to have an intention,

"intention to deceive", by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with

accomplishment or qualities of gain. As we have already discussed above,

the pleadings raised in the recall application do not satisfy the aspect of

fraud merely on the ground of the clauses contained in the affidavit and the

way it has been interpreted by the learned counsel for the Applicant, when

he had failed to establish, as to what was the intent to illegally gain the

benefit, so far as it related to pressing of the application for intervention.

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 21 of 34

44. Literally, the fraud, as per the Oxford Dictionary, reads as under:-

"wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain: he was convicted of fraud prosecutions for social security frauds. Person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities: mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds.

- ORIGIN MIDDLE ENGLISH: from Old French fraude, from Latin fraud, fraud-'deceit, injury"

45. Even according to the Law Lexicon, it deals with as to what actually

the term "fraud" means under law, and it has widely described it that it

means that it should aim to deceive in the grant of a benefit in a proceeding

or while dealing with any other aspect which monetarily benefits the person

who exercises fraud. It cannot be utilized as a general expression for the

purposes of every misrepresentation or a concealment, which can constitute

misrepresentation but not fraud.

46. The Webster's Third New International Dictionary has defined "fraud"

in the following terms: "It is an act or an omission to act or concealment by

which one person obtains an advantage against conscious over another or

which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another."

47. None of these principles would be attracted in the present case, where

the fact of establishment of fraud itself is not made out because of the

reasons which we have already considered above.

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 22 of 34

48. The explanation given therein of fraud in the Oxford Dictionary, if it is

read in the context of criminal law, which deals with its finalization upon

holding of an offence of fraud, is dealt with under the Indian Penal Code

(IPC) under Section 415, which is a criminal Act and which has certain

background, which is otherwise motivated by an act of deceiving or

dishonestly inducing a person to believe something which is not otherwise

true. The element of fraud as contemplated under Section 415 of the IPC, to

be read with Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which

requires a satisfaction before a criminal prosecution is required to be carried

for the offence of fraud. Even as per the expression given by the statute

under Section 415 of the IPC and Section 318 of the BNS, the entire

allegation raised by the Applicant to the recall application does not lead to

draw an impeccable inference that the Appellant can at all be saddled with

the responsibility of having an intention to cheat or dishonestly inducing to

gain a right, and that too, as we have already observed above, the Applicant

had been contesting the proceedings before this Tribunal.

49. He had with all sincerity, and overwhelming diligence, had

participated in the proceedings while pressing upon his application, which

has been decided on merits by the Order dated 10.09.2026, rejecting his

impleadment application being I.A. No. 6230 of 2026. When this Tribunal

had voluntarily completed the proceedings and the same stood rejected

based upon the affidavit filed by the Appellant, the Applicant now cannot, at

a subsequent stage, take a malicious somersault and fish out the ground of

fraud, which otherwise was also available to him to be pressed at the time

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 23 of 34 when the application I.A. No. 6230 of 2026 was being considered by this

Tribunal and was being pressed on merits. Having not done so, it is no more

open for the Appellant to argue that the reply filed by the Appellant in

response to I.A. No. 6230 of 2026 was actuated by fraud, so as to enable

him to sustain his recall application, to have a new enmity to press his

application under Order I Rule 8A of CPC, preferred in the shape of

impleadment, and that in an Appeal by Appellant against disciplinary

proceedings.

50. Because of the fact that the parameters those were required to be

satisfied for completing and complaining an act of fraud have not been

satisfied, owing to the grounds taken by the Applicant, the plea is not

acceptable by us. In the absence of the same, the application for recall,

which in fact is being camouflaged as seeking a review, which is not

otherwise permissible under law, would not be maintainable and, hence,

would deserve rejection.

51. Learned counsel for the Applicant to the recall application has raised

a peculiar argument and, it would not be out of context to submit, an

irrational ground too. That the conduct of the counsel for Appellant itself

was bad and he ought to have taken care of the earlier Order passed by the

Tribunal in some other matter, where the counsel was granted an

opportunity to rectify the defects in the affidavit. In relation thereto, while

elaborating his argument, the learned counsel, particularly while remarking

upon the conduct of the counsel for the Appellant in person as an

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 24 of 34 individual, who has filed the reply in opposition to the intervention

application, has extracted some Order passed in some other Comp. App.

(AT) No. 43 of 2026, as against the counsel, on that basis observing thereof

that the Appellant was conscious of the fact that the affidavits would be

rectifiable defects and thus, in that eventuality, he made reference to the

Order dated 17.02.2026 as passed in Comp. App. (AT) No. 43 of 2026, which

has no nexus to the present proceedings of the intervention or the recall

application.

52. Recall applicant argues, if that be a rectifiable defect, then the counsel

ought to have rectified it himself after seeking an opportunity from the

Tribunal. We make it very clear that the Order dated 17.02.2026 is not a

precedent or a ratio decidendi because that was an Order, which was passed

at an interlocutory stage in Comp. App. (AT) No. 43 of 2026, which was

altogether an independent proceeding having no relation to the present

Appeal. Since it is not a ratio decided, it cannot be taken as an authority,

that the counsel for the Appellant who had filed the reply, was conscious of

the fact of the probable expected rectification of defects, which he ought to

have carried. The gravamen of argument is more of personnel against

counsel, rather than the case itself.

53. This stand taken, though it may be professionally laudable, being

against the fraternity and for no good cause, is not acceptable by us and

stands turned down.

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 25 of 34

54. The learned counsel for the Applicant has heavily relied upon the

written submissions and the Orders as filed in support thereto. Outrightly,

we decline to accept the same because the title head of the said written

submissions is in relation to I.A. No. 6680 of 2026, that has been preferred

in I.A. No. 6168 of 2026. This written submission is not in relation to I.A.

No. 6679 of 2026 filed by the Applicant, by virtue of which he has sought

the recall of the Order dated 10.09.2026. In that eventuality, the written

submissions in itself cannot be borrowed to be accepted or supplied while

deciding I.A. No. 6679 of 2026, when it has not been filed to be read in

relation to I.A. No. 6679 of 2026, which obviously has to be decided

independently, since filed by different applicant for different relief.

55. What is important is that the application for recall was preferred by

the Applicant before the Registry on 14.09.2026. The proceedings were

taken up on 14.09.2026, whereby the Applicant's counsel intimated about

filing of the application for recall, being I.A. No. 6679 of 2026, to which this

Tribunal directed the Registry to take note of it and to place the application

on the next date fixed, i.e., 16.09.2026.

56. When the proceedings were taken up on 16.09.2026, the matter could

not be taken up. The counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Deepak Khosla, could

not participate in the proceedings because of his personal inconvenience

due to the ailment of his father, who was admitted in hospital. The said

request was opposed, as it was argued by the learned counsel for the

Appellant that it was a craft adopted by recall applicant's counsel to adjourn

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 26 of 34 the proceedings and get it delayed. But still, this Tribunal accommodated

the Applicant's counsel, Mr. Deepak Khosla, and placed the matter for

17.09.2026.

57. On 17.09.2026, when the matter was taken up, it could be seen from

the proceedings as recorded, that the Tribunal, for the reasons recorded in

the Order dated 17.09.2026, had released the matter to be placed before

another Bench because at the stage of recall application, unnecessary

valuable time of the court was being consumed at the cost of the matter

listed on that date, owing to which the Hon'ble Acting Chairperson has

nominated this Bench.

58. Why reference of these dates of 14.09.2026, 16.09.2026 and

17.09.2026 is required to be referred herein is because, on all these dates,

the application for recall, i.e., I.A. No. 6679 of 2026, filed by the

Respondent/Applicant through his counsel, Mr. Deepak Khosla, was never

addressed on merits.

59. The proceedings of the application, upon the matter being posted

before us, were taken up on 21.09.2026. On 21.09.2026 itself, the

Applicant, through his counsel, Mr. Deepak Khosla, without a prior leave of

the Tribunal filed the written submissions. Filing of written submissions is

not customary, and filing of it does not depend upon the whims and fancies

of the party to the proceedings to file the written submissions as per their

choice. Filing of written submissions is only when the Court or the Tribunal

feels upon conclusion of arguments that its necessary and then when it

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 27 of 34 directs the party to file written submissions, it could be filed. Filing of a

written submission has to be with the prior leave of Tribunal, when the

Tribunal feels its necessary to facilitate and make the judgment dictation

convenient. Because by the time matter is argued counsel has sufficient

opportunity to raise all his pleadings.

60. For that purpose, the principles have been enunciated under Order

XVIII Rule 3C and 3D of the CPC, which would be applicable, and it is not

as a matter of choice of the litigant or his counsel to file written submissions

without arguing the matter on merits and even being called by the Court,

because written submissions only facilitate the Tribunal when the Tribunal

or the Court feels that they are required to be filed.

61. Though we have considered the written submissions as filed by the

Applicant's counsel, on 21.09.2026, which contained pleading and material

even much beyond the recall application itself, which in impermissible to be

introduced at the stage of filing of written submission. When the application

itself was taken up on merits, under law, it was not required to be heard on

the basis of written submissions which was attempted by the learned

counsel, and that too particularly when it was introducing all the new facts

which were not even part and parcel when the arguments were extended in

the intervention application while passing of an Order dated 10.09.2026, or

even in the recall application.

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 28 of 34

62. Thus, the plea of the written submissions is declined to be considered,

and more particularly when it is actuated by malice, intending to delay the

proceedings, and a consequence of professional acumen.

63. In response, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that all

these arguments are not open to be extended by the learned counsel for the

Applicant to the recall application, as the authority under which the

proceedings were taken i.e., Power of Attorney by the Applicant was not

placed on record despite the note clause as submitted in the application for

impleadment, i.e., I.A. No. 6230 of 2026, because till the arguments were

concluded on 10.09.2026, the Applicant didn't had a valid attorney with the

deponent of the affidavit to the impleadment application, I.A. No. 6230 of

2026. Hence, it was a fallacious proceeding and it could not be considered.

64. Though at this stage we are not required to venture into that issue,

though it may be having a bearing upon the sustainability of I.A. No. 6230 of

2026, we are refraining from making any observations because I.A. No. 6230

of 2026 seeking an intervention has already been decided on merits and, at

present, we are only seized with the recall application seeking recall of the

Order dated 10.09.2026.

65. If we could summarise the manner in which the proceedings have

been taken for the recall application at the behest of the Applicant, through

his counsel, Mr. Deepak Khosla, it is a motivated proceeding catalyzed in

the shape of seeking a recall of an Order which has been otherwise passed

on merits on 10.09.2026, rejecting the Impleadment Application i.e., I.A. No.

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 29 of 34 6230 of 2026. It cannot be permitted to be revisited on the basis or under

the garb of the recall application, which is otherwise in the shape of a review

of the Order dated 10.09.2026 and is outside the scope of the procedures

contemplated under the IBC.

66. Hence, the recall is misconceived and the same is accordingly rejected

with a cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs.

I.A. No. 6680 of 2026 (by Applicant Ajmair Singh Bhullar)

1. This application is nothing but a consequence of a hardcore

conspiracy. The Applicant to I.A. No. 6680 of 2026, along with the Applicant

to I.A. No. 6679 of 2026 (Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora), both the Applicants,

have somehow conspired to ensure stall the proceedings of the instant

Company Appeal and, hence, by one way or another, they wanted to

interfere with the proceedings.

2. Earlier, the Applicant, Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora's application for

impleadment, already stood rejected by an Order dated 10.09.2026, which

has been sought to be recalled by him by filing recall application, being I.A.

No. 6679 of 2026, which we have rejected by this Order, for the reasons

recorded in the preceding paragraphs.

3. The Company Appeal is against an Order dated 21.08.2026 disposing

of the show-cause notice issued against the Appellant, Mr. Navneet Gupta,

the Insolvency Professional, for drawing the proceedings against him, for his

professional misconduct, as per the IBBI Regulations in these eventuality,

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 30 of 34 so far as the Applicant, Mr. Ajmair Singh Bhullar, is concerned, he, in any

capacity, has got nothing to do with the controversy involved in the

Company Appeal. Mr. Ajmair Singh Bhullar is not a party to the

proceedings, which are the subject matter of challenge in the Company

Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026, nor has he been chosen by the

Appellant to be made as a party in the instant Company Appeal. As relief

sought in the Appeal relates or effects any of the legally sustainable rights of

the Applicants of both the applications.

4. Hence, under the principle of dominus litis, he cannot impose upon

himself, to be made a party in a proceeding in which he is neither directly

nor indirectly affected by it nor is a proceedings against him. A very

astonishing feature that has been revealed from I.A. No. 6680 of 2026,

preferred by Mr. Ajmair Singh Bhullar, is that, surprisingly, he has sought

his impleadment only in I.A. No. 6168 of 2026, that is, the stay application

only, that has been preferred in the Company Appeal, and has modulated

his relief in the following manner:-

"That in view of the above facts and circumstances of the matter, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may:

i. Allow impleadment of the Applicant as a limited respondent only in IA No. 6168 of 2026 for adjudication of prayers (iii) and (iv) thereof, which pray for relief as follows, these prayers thereby directly impacting the interests of claimants in James Hotels Limited, Chandigarh whose liquidation is pending before the Hon'ble NCLT

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 31 of 34 (Chandigarh) in CP (IB) No. 15 / CHD / 2017, given that para 3.3 of the impugned order directs that "3.3 A copy of this order shall be sent to the CoC of all the corporate debtors in which Mr. Navneet Gupta is providing his services. The CoC of the respective corporate debtors shall replace Mr. Navneet Gupta with another Resolution Professional in terms of Section 27 of the Code.":

iii. Kindly stay, in particular, the operation and effect of the direction contained in paragraph 3.3 of the Impugned Order requiring the Committees of Creditors of all corporate debtors in which the Applicant is rendering services to replace him under Section 27 of the Code;

iv. Direct that the Applicant be permitted to continue rendering services in his existing assignments and that no steps be taken to replace or remove him pursuant to paragraph 3.3 of the Impugned Order, during the pendency of the accompanying Appeal.

ii. Keeping the appeal pending, require IBBI to adjudicate Ground V of the complaint (pertaining to unauthorized withdrawal of around Rs. 65 crores, which has, now, been formally refused to be ratified by Indian Bank in the COC held on 21-08-2026), and to adjudicate that allegation within a time-bound time frame, so that this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal is not required to conduct adjudication piecemeal against the same RP for misconduct pertaining to the

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 32 of 34 same corporate debtor and recounted in a single complaint.

iii. In the alternative, permit the Applicant to intervene and address the confined questions of law, inter-alia, on 'balance-of-convenience' and 'irreparable injury' issues stated herein, including under the principles of Order I (Rule 8A) CPC;

iv. hear the Applicant before granting any stay of paragraph 3.3, or any direction permitting the Appellant to continue in all existing assignments; v. dismiss prayers (iii) and (iv); or, in the alternative, exclude James Hotel Limited from any blanket continuation order, and leave continuation/replacement to the competent Adjudicating Authority after hearing affected stakeholders and imposing record preservation safeguards;

vi. Impose exemplary costs on the appellant for pressing an appeal not supported by an affidavit, which fatal flaw was not disclosed to - rather, was suppressed from - this Hon'ble Tribunal on 02-09- 2026 and 03-09-2026, and also not disclosing during the hearing of IA No. 6230 of 2026 the very vital and material fact that prayers (iii) and (iv) of IA No. 6186 of 2026, if granted, directly affected the interests of all corporate debtors where the appellant is a resolution professional / Liquidator (such as the applicant in IA No. 6230 of 2026).

vii. Pass ex parte orders on the above prayers viii. Any further interim order or direction which this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal may deem fit and proper

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 33 of 34 in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the appellant."

5. It is very difficult to conceive that an Applicant would choose to be

impleaded only in a stay application. There is no such concept of seeking

impleadment in the stay application when the Applicant is not a party to the

main Company Appeal. Hence, in the context of the relief sought and for the

reasons which we have already assigned while considering the application of

Mr. Haravtar Singh Arora, this application too, being I.A. No. 6680 of 2026,

is malicious, collusive, and is a conspiracy between Mr. Haravtar Singh

Arora and the Applicant, and would stand rejected with costs of Rs.

2,00,000/-.

6. Before we close this order, we would be failing in our onerous

responsibility to record our appreciation to patience and politeness that has

been bestowed by the learned counsel for the Applicant to the members of

the Bench.

7. List on 26th November, 2026.

[Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma] Member (Judicial)

[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) NEW DELHI 09th October, 2026 rashmi

I.A. Nos. 6679 & 6680 of 2026 in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1612 of 2026 34 of 34