IN THE IIIGH COURT OF JIIDICATT]RE AT MADRAS

(APPELLATE JURTSDTCTTON)
w.A. NO. 218 0F 2024
' Against
W.P. No.21186 of 2023
Adv. (CA) V. Venkata Siva Kumar
.. ...Petitioner / Appellant
Vs
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBD
Represented by Mr. Rajesh Kumar

And2 otheis
1t'Respondent
WRITTEN STIBNtrSSIONS OF THE APPELLANT _ 10.02.2024

I, V. Venkata Sivakumar, Chartered Accountant, S/o. Late V.S. Gandhi, Hindu,

aged about 60 Years, residing at l0/II, Dr. Subbarayan Nagar Main Road,

Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600024 do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state

as follows:

l. The Appellant Respectfully submits that this Hon'ble Court heard this

matter on 19-01-202I and issued notice to the Respondents retumable on 14-

02-2022.

2. T\e Appellant appeared before the Hon'ble Disciplinary Committee on 25-

0I-2024 chaired by Ld. Judicial Member assisted by the same officials who

issued the show cause notice. The Appellant was heard for 90 minutes.
 2

3. The Hon'ble Judicial Member raised the following questions

a. Why did you approach Hon'ble Madras High Court against the Show

Cause Notice issued to You?

b. Why did you file a Contempt Petition against our officers b.iore

Hon'ble NCLAT Chennai Bench?

c. What is the evidence with you to establish that circulation of

Valuation Report to the prospective scheme proponents is done in the

best interest of the comPanY?

d. What is the evidence with you to counter the investigation report

which says

"It has been alleged that by sharing the valuation report with

the prospective scheme proponents, he has provided undue

advantage td an interested party and failed to act obiectively

and did not take sfficient measures to maximize the value of

the assets and properties of the CD".

,
How did you ensure / maintain the confidentiality of the information?

Will you withdraw the Contempt Petition No. 05 of 2023 filed against

our officers now?

 3

Why did you approach Hon'ble Madras High Court against the Show

Cause Notice issued to vou?

THE APPELLAI\T SUBMISSIONS

1.01 There is no bar for approaching the Constitutional Court against the ordOr of

the Inqurry Committee issuing show cause notice which resulted in

suspension from the membership for 8 months with loss of assignments and

reputation.

I.02 The Appellant pointed out the order of this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal

which clearly directed adjudication of the SCN on its own merits

irespective of the order of Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P. 21186 of 2023 or

any other Tribunal as this Hon'ble Division Bench is the highest

Constitutional Court of the state

 4

:
D- EiFtAFtATt+A Cr{AKFtA\tAEtTt+y, 3-

f{eard the petitione6 appearing

rn peFson.
Issue notice to Ehe
resg>ondents; returnal>le on
t4-o2-2e24_
M/e are not inclined to stall tlre
enqrriry. The enquirlz rrtay proceed on
its o\ rrr rnerits- -|-he learnqd Single
Judge of lJris Court has not decided
ar-r'!/ isst.re rror an)/ finding has been
arri'rred at conclusirrellr- It is for the
authorities to consider the case pLtt
forth by the petitioner orr its ov\rr-l
rnerits-
List on 14-A2-2O24-

(sr-v_G_, c3_) (D-B-C-, J_)

1_9-O1 _2g24

b. Why did you file a Contempt Petition against our officers before lfon'ble
I

NCLAT Chennai Bench?

APPELLAI\IT SUBI/flSSIONS :
 5

2.OI The Inquiry Report has become NONEST and illegal because of the

following reasons - Para 2,3 8.4 of the SCN Report

(lllBlllFA"0fllilP-P00t$41}01?-18/l$85?}
lnvestigrtiou 1{epcrtof lP, Mr. Venli*ta Sivekumar

in ettercise of its power lnder secti0n 218

of fte
The Insolvency and Bankruptey Board of India,
of
(code) read wittr the lnsolvency and Banlffuptcy Foard
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
201? (lnvestigation Rtgulation$, ditectod tlre
India (lnspecrion and Inve$igation) Regulations,
on
vinay Fandey, Manager to conduct investigation
lnve$igating Authority (lA) consisring of Mr.
Technical Meurber af NCIT, ehennai Beuch again$t Mr'
eomplaint frled by Mr. Anil Kumar, lbrmer
7-l 8/ I 0852)'
Venkau sivakilmar (IBBI/IPA-00 I /lP'P00 I 84/201

the hwestigation Regulations was issued

to
z. Aceordingly, a ngrics under Regulation 8(liof

along with releyant documents on ot

belote 22nd $eptembe

a rejoinder to the lnvestigation

Notice'
September 2022 submitted

gamut of lhe issuss

3. lp further vide letterdated 16il'septernber
20?2 submitted that the entirc
In the ssid
NCLAT arrd Honbtr Madnas Higlr court,
raised is sub.judiee pending hfore Hon'bre
lrom proeeeding with the
lettrr, Ip citej order of*4rerein the Disciplinary cornrnittee reftained
lsBl
the cornplaint, in
that rhe Board has uken cognizance of
maner which are subjudim and submitted

spite of knowing thatthe issue is sub-judice'

by the lP es well as other material avtilable

4. 0' the basis of clarificatioiis and replios submined
-
on record, IA has made the following observations in the snid mattcr:

3.01 The investigating authority and the other officials of IBBI, a statutory body

established under the act of the parliament who are bound

by Section 218 of

IBC which mandates recording of reasons in a very negligent manner

without any regard for a professionals fundamental rights under article

2l
 6

and 19 of our constitution in abrazen manner issued a SCN suspending the

petitioner on 03 -07-2022.

3.02 That they were aware of restraint order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal but

not willing to abide by it and not willing to give any reasons for the same.

3.03 That they were aware of the restraint order of Hon'ble Madras High Court

but he is not willing to abide by it and not willing to give any reasons for the

same.

3.04 That they were aware of the precedents followed by IBBI in such matters but

not willing to abide by it and not willing to give any reasons for the same.

3.05 Th"y made false statements, and misrepresentations amounting to cheating

on oath attracting Section 219 of IPC, that they carried out the investigation

by seeking information without really doing the same.

3.06 Over-ruled the IBBI guidelines, IIPI IPA dismissal , law laid down by
Hon?ble SC in Vrjay Kumar Jain Vs standard chartered Bank which was

based on BLRC report without giving any reasons.

3.07 Suppressed the circulation of valuation report based on NDA and EMD of 2

Crores from all the resolution applicants by making false statement

 7

What is the evidence with you to establish that circulation of Valuation

Report to the prospective scheme proponents is done in the best interest of

the company?

APPELLANT SUBMISSIONS :

4.01 The above conclusion is drawn with a malafide intention and the same is

false and contrary to the facts as under:

st. Name of Applicant Amount Quoted

No In Crores
I Rare Asset Reconstruction Limited 475.5 Crores

2. DNC Infrastructure Private Limited 324 Crores

a
J Aaria Projects Limited 279 Crores

4. iWs. Synergy Holdings 125 Crores

5. lWs. Power Mech Projects Limited and 125 Crores

Kineta Global Limited
6. Amaravathi Textiles Private Limited 100-125 Crores

7. Karthi Rukmini energy Limited 90-110 Crores

8. DBR environ Pvt. Ltd. Yet to be quoted

9. KCP Sugars & industries Corp. Ltd. 50 Crores

d. How did you ensure / maintarnthe confidentialiff?

 8

5.01 The Appellant submiued that he took NDA from every Resolution Applicant

after carrying out due diligence (29A Eligibility etc.,) and also took EMD of

Rs. 2 Crores refer to the enclosures.

5.02 The Appellant submitted the citations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, IBBI

precedents and guide lines, BLRC Report and Hon'ble NCLT Judgements

across the nation.

CONCLUSIONS:

a. The Hon'ble Judicial Member was shocked to know that, as he was

not aware of the above procedures followed by the Appellant (as per

BLRC Report, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijaya Kumar Jain Vs

Standard Chartered Bank)

b. Directed to produce the NDA once again, ffid same was complied

with (Email on 25n January, 2024) & (CA-05-2023 WRITTEN

SUBMISSIONS ON 06-02-2024 PAGE 8 TO 25)

Finally Orders were reserved on 25th January. 2024 and as on date not
I

pronounced.

Appellant-in-Person
2/10/24, 12:35 PM Gmail - As per the direction of Disciplinary Committee Authority
9

VENKATASIVAKUMAR V <arunasri.siva@gmail.com>

As per the direction of Disciplinary Committee Authority

1 message

VENKATASIVAKUMAR V <arunasri.siva@gmail.com> 25 January 2024 at 18:29

To: Rajesh Kumar <rajesh.k10@ibbi.gov.in>

Respected Sir,

As directed by the Disciplinary Committee Authority I am enclosing herewith NDA

taken from all the scheme proponents who paid EMD of Rs. 2 Crores which is
forfeitable.

The public announcement details are enclosed herewith and 1st SCC and 2nd JLF
minutes which clearly establishes that the IDBI Bank is fully aware of the process
which is done with their approval.

Please note in the 2nd SCC meeting I have facilitated direct negotiations between the
Scheme Proponents and the Bankers

Please also see the order of SR. 217 of 2020 Para 12 where the Liquidation Values
was disclosed by the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority which necessitated revised
valuation and not revaluation as per Sec 230 of Companies Act 2013.

IA/194/2021 & IA/71/2021 the orders of Hon'ble NCLT Chennai Bench directed
conducting further negotiations which were also approved by the IDBI Bank. The Ld
Technical Member of Hon'ble NCLAT raised the issue of why they have not
challenged
1. Summary_EoI.xlsx

2. NDA Details of All Scheme Proponents.pdf

3. Liquidation order 29-05-2020.pdf

4. MOM OF SCC AND JLF MEETING AND ORDERS OF…

5. Mail to Scheme Proponents Regarding Valuatio...

6. Valuation Report and Information Memorandum.pdf

7. Sakshi Epaper Form - B.pdf

that order if they are aggrieved in CA(AT)(Ins) 302 of 2021.

This is for your kind information

--
With Regards

V Venkata Siva Kumar, B.sc, FCA, DISA, LL.M (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW), FAFD (ICAI), Certification
Course, Resolution Professional (IBBI).
10/11, Dr Subbarayan Nagar Main road,

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=dc518c7082&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r2797746713198181715&simpl=msg-a:r19351500961… 1/2
 108
56

',{,'

IN THE NATiONAL COMPANY LAw TRI-BUNA,L'

DIVISION BENCH 'II' CHEN'NAI
'.
tA | 2s5 fiB | 2O2L in IA/7 L fiB/ 2A2 1 in IAI 8I9 / IB / 2a2O
& IAl1 o/IB/2020 in ,CPl1307 fiBlzoft
(frIed under section 60 (5) of the Insolvency' and Bankruptcy'Cade,
2016 r/w Rute 7'1 of NC|T Rules, 2016)

In the matter of M/s, Jeypore suga'i company Limited,

1, IDBI BANK LIMITED,
Branch Office at 115'
Anna Salai, SaidaPet,
Chennai - 600015.

2. Bank of India,
Branch office at:
Chennai Mid CorPorate Branch,
IV Floor, TaraPore Towers,
No. 826, Annasalai,
Chennai - 600 002.

3. Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and

Securitisation ComPanY Ltd.'
No. 1-55, Raja, Prasasadamu,
4th Floor, Wing 1, Majid Banda Road,
KondPur, HYderabad - 1.

4. Bank of Baroda Stressed Asset Management Branch,

No.45, Moor Street,
JBAS Building, 4th Floor,
Chennai 600 001.
-
5. Indian Overseas Bank,
Branch office at: ASset Recovery Management Branch,
762, Anna Salai'
Chennai - 600 002.

The District Co-Oper I Bank Limited,

Branch office at: Pan treet,
; R.R.Pet, Eluru, West trict - 534 002'
..,. Applica nts/Secu red Creditor

Jeypore Sugar ComPanY Limited

1 of39
 119
60

r Kodambakkam,
Chennai -600024
... Appfiiants
-Vs-

1. Rakesh Shaim-a Ji
The Chaifman -& Managing DireCtor
IDBI Bank.Limited,
IDBI Tower, WTC Complex,
Cuffee Paiade, Cofaba,
Mumbai - 400 005

2. Joint Lenders Forum (Secured Creditors)

Rep. by Mr. Durga Prasad (IDBI DGM)
M/s. Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd.
No.115, Anna Salai, NMG Centre
Opposite to Ashok Leyland
Corporate Office, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 015

3. Mahendra Mohan Naik

General Manager (Recovery)
IDBI Bank Limited
No.115, Anna Salai, NMG Centre
Opposite to Ashok Leyland
Corporate Office, Guindy,
Chennai - 600 015

4. Mls. Kineta Global Limited

In Consoritum with Power Mech Projects Limited
Rep. by Mr. B. Venkat
4tr Floor, Kineta Tower, Plot No.51 to 54,
Journalist Colony, Road No.3, Banjara Hils,
Hyderabad - 500 034

5. Director General of Police

Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Road,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004
... Respondents

Order Pronounced on 7y'h November 2021

1&3Ors
In the mafier of M/s. Jeypore Sugar Company Limited
5of39
 12
10
90

the S€cur:ed C-reditors that the Liquidator has'not addressed'the

issue as to how he is going to deal with the property situat€d at
Rayagada, which formS part of the LiQUidation Estate and also it is
peftinent to point out here that the said Rayagada property cannot

be, sold for a value of 'zero' ih favour of a prospective scheme

proponents.

43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharasthra

Seamless Limited -Vs- Padmanabhan Venkatesh & Ors. in
Civit Appeat No. 4242 of 2079 at para 27 has held that the object

behind prescribing such valuation process is to assist the CoC to

take decision on a resolution plan properly. Further, it is required

to be noted that the valuation repoft should be treated as a
confidential document and it is. used as a yardstick for the CoC /
Stakeholders to negotiate with the prospective Resolution Applicant

/ Scheme Proponents in order to maximize the assets of the

Corporate Debtor. However, in the present case it is alleged by the

Secured Creditors that the Liquidator has shared the valuation

Repoft with the prospective Scheme proponents and the Liquidator

has nowhere in his counter has denied the same. Hence, the
apprehension of the Secured Creditors that the sharing of the draft
 13
11
19
1

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

CHENNAI BENCH, CHENNAI
COMP.APP.(AT)(CH)(Ins) NO.302/2021
IA No.639 to 641/2021
In the matter of:
Kineta Global Ltd Appellant
Vs
IDBI Bank Ltd & 9 Ors Respondent
Present:

For Appellant : Mr. P. Wilson, Sr. Advocate

For Respondent No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Varun Srinivasan, Advocate
For Respondent No. 7/
Liquidator : Mr. Venkata Sivakumar, Advocate

ORDER
VIRTUAL MODE
03.12.2021: Heard Mr. P. Wilson, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the Appellant. At this juncture, Mr. Varun Srinivasan, the Learned Counsel

appears for Respondent No.1 to 6 and informs this Tribunal that he has filed

Vakalat for 1st Respondent and prays for time to file Vakalat in respect to 2nd

to 6th Respondent and also for filing Reply/Response/Counter on behalf of

1st to 6th Respondent. In this regard, three weeks’ time is granted from today

to file Reply/Response not only through e filing but also through Hard Copy

and the copy of the same shall be served to the other counsel well in advance

before the next date of Hearing, before the ‘Office of the Registry’.

On receipt of the “Reply/Response’ of 1st to 6th Respondents, it is open

for the Learned Counsel for the Appellant to file Rejoinder, if any, within one

week thereafter, not only through e filing but also through Hard Copy and the
 14
12
20
2

copy of the same shall be served to the other counsel well in advance before

the next date of Hearing, before the ‘Office of the Registry’.

In respect of other Respondents, Notice is ordered to be issued through

speed post returnable by 03.02.2022. Let the Requisites alongwith process

fee be filed within three days from today. Mr Venkata Sivakumar, Liquidator

appears in person and he is permitted to file Status Report before the next

date of Hearing, of course, after serving copy to the other side.

Till the next date of hearing, there shall be a ‘Stay’ of the Advertisement

Notice’ dated 27.11.2021 published by the Liquidator inviting prospective

applications (under Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013) in IA

No.639/2021. There shall be a ‘Stay’ of the Impugned Order 17.11.2021 in

IA No.641/2021.

Before the next date of Hearing, it is open to the Learned Counsel for

the respective parties to file their ‘Notes of Submissions’ containing not more

than 3-5 pages together with ‘Citations’ which they rely upon, not only

through e filing but also through Hard copy and the copy of the same shall be

exchanged between them, well in advance, before the ‘Office of the Registry’.

The ‘Office of the Registry’ is directed to ‘List’ the matter on 03.02.2022.

(Justice M. Venugopal)
Member (Judicial)

(Mr. Kanthi Narahari)

Member (Technical)
Bm/manu
 15
13
21
 16
14
22
 17
15
23
 18
16
24
 19
17
25
 20
18
26
 21
19
27
 22
20

r7

9. BLRC Report:

Part -B
f-BLRC Report (page 4547 of T-II)
II'. The Code will enable qtnmefiy of information bdween creditors and debtors-
5- The law must ensure that information that is essential for the insolvency and the
bmkmptcy resolution process is created and available when it is required.
6. The law must ensure that access to this information is made available to all creditors
to the enterprise, either directly or through the regulated professional.
7 -'Ia.e law must enable access to this information to third parties 'who can participate in
' thdresolution process, through the regulated professional.

II.WJAY KU]ITAR JAIN I8 STANDARD

Suprm Court of hdia

Vijay Kunar Jain vs Standard Chartered Bank ou 3 I January, 2019
Au@r: RNariman
R.EPORTABL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IIIDIA CN'IL

APPELLATE/ORIdN'AL JURISDTCEON

CIVILAPPEALNO.8410 ('F 20r 8

\.I'AYKuMAR'AIN ...APPELLANT(S)

\IERSIJS

STAYDARD CHARTERED BANK

&oRs. ... RESPONDENT(S)

\1'ITH

WRIT PETTTION (Ct\:lL) NO.t 266 OF20 I 6

I JUDCMENT

RF. NARIMAI{,J.

r. The pre*u appial arises out of an Appellate Tribunat's judgmant rejecting the appellanr"s prayer for
38
 23
21

18

IO.PARA 16 & 17

16, Ite ai$neil on hhalf of the cormittee of creditors basetl on the pmviso to Section 21(2) is also

misronceived" The proviso to Section 2lp) clanfies that r director u'ho is also a frnancial ueditor u'ho is a

relatd panv of lhe corprate debtor shall not have ary riglrt of lepnsenktion, participation, 0r volin"{ in a

me€trug of the conunittre of seditors. Dircctors. siurplicitor, are mt the subject naner of the proviso to

Secuon 2 t(2), but only directon *to ue related pailies of the corporate debtor. It is only such pnons who do

nd luve ary ri$t of represeutatiou puticipation, or voting in a meeting of the cotndttee of creditols,

Therefore, the contmtion hat a director sirylicitor rvould lnve the d$t to .qet
docunents as against a director

nho is a fnancial creditor is not au aryummt that rs based on the pmriso to Sectiol2l(2), conectlyread, as il
refen only to a frnancial uditor *to is a relatd party of the corporate debtor. For tlis reason, this arpneil

alsomrsthrejectd.

t7, We nay also nentoninpassing thatthe BanlruptcyLaw Conmittee Reportof Novemhr,2015 stated:

"[, Itre Code mll enable symrnetry of infonnation betrveen ueditom and debtors.

5,Ihe law msl en$re that infonnation that is essential for the insolvency and the banknptcy resolution

Fmr$ is creatd and available rvhen it rs rquued,

6, The larv lrust erffie that access to thrs infomution is nmde available to all ueditors to the entuprise, eitlrr

dirmtly or through the regulatd profesional.

.

7.I1re law mst enable access t0 this infomratiol t0 third parties who can parlicipate in the resolution

proces$. thongh the regrlated pmfesional." Paragaph II (7) conmtli reflecls tre rcason fot Section

24(3Xb) ofthe Code.

 24
22

l9

\
m.

I|ATIOTAL GOIIPNTY LAW TRIBITI'/IL

AIIIIEDA'ID BETICH
counT-3
IAlfo.4&ot2o2O
tn
cP IIE) soll of 20lE

(Undsr Section 6O(51{c} of the Insolvency & Ban ,2016 read with
Rrrle I I of the lnsolvency and Bankruptcy to Adjudicating
Authorityf Rules, 20 16)

Ia thc nrtter of:

Ecuril SDrnulrl Shrh t Anr.

...Appllcantr

Vetauc

Crre OtEcc Ltd.

fUcn$ Rcroludon Proferctotil
Vile$.tdr e Or3.
...Reapondent / Cotporate Dcbtor

Ordcr Prolounced ont 30/G112fi13

 25
23

20

body of Ex-management arrd they were in control and handling the same
titl CIRP initiation. It would be pre-judicial if they are not even allowed to
view the valuation and point out the shortfalls in valuation, if any.
The intent of code being maximization of value while insolvency
resolution process, all concerned should be given accegs to t}re docurRent
u'trich witl be cmcial for deciding worth of corporate debtor which is
intended to be given new lease of life. There is no epecific provieion to not
to share copy of valuation report with ex-directors, we hold that iri
interest ofjustice the copy of valuation report needs to be supplied to ex-
directors, as already directed by the kedecessor Bench.
Accordingly, we direct Resolution hofessional to supply copy of valuation
report to the applicants withirr 2 days of this order,
10. We are of the opinion that Resolution hofessional shall prowide a. copy
of tJ.e valuation report to the suspended management of ttre corporate
d'ebtor subject to an undertaking from rnembers of the suspended
Er:rnagerrrerrt, to rnaintain confrderetialrty. The source of tJ.is 1rcwer is
Regulation 7(2Xh) of tlle Insolvency and Banl,ruptcy Board of India
(lnsolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, read with paragraph 21 of
tl.e First Schedule thereto. Ttris can be in the forsr of a oon-disclosure
a€reenxent in which the resohrtion professional can be indemnilied in
case inforrration is not kept strictly conIidenfial.
11. The application is partially allowed in terms of prayer f (ii), only. sl
12. For ottrer prayers the application is listed for fi,rrther consideratiorr on s
o
N
os.o4.2022.
.i) $l
i\
':. *{*r b.t
d 3\,
-sd- -sd-
I(aurlalca&r l(um.ar alngh Dr. Ilocptl Mukcrh
Dllember lTechateell Monnbor lJudlcfelf

Alrhishck Singh

ra lto- alra ol 2olo

Prc?*.rt'j,., d-t-b
S 1,"15oros2e,s Siq'l 'a5EG
r Cate oep
l{CtT, Afinedabad 0en{:il
Ahmcdabad
 26
24

2l

II.NDA AGREEMNT TAKEN FROM ALL THE RESOLUATION

APPLICANTS ALONGWITH Rs. 2 CRORES OF EMD

NTTIIT;TT TELANGANA AA 920605

././
'/ s.LAxMI NARAyANA
S 4-O7-2(nO Liccnccd Stamp Vmdor
I! . s/o. JoJArAn
s/u. JoJATAH NATDU, R/O. FIyD
NATOU, HyD
FoRw{OM:
n
IONETAGLOBALLIMITED Otr m
u pb:9989868s?9

F
E

AlDEQxure a
'^
E
CONT'IDENTIALITY AND T{ON - DISCLOSURE AGREEMDNT
E

R rr,i. coNFIDENTHrlry AND NoN - DIscLosuRE

e AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred as "Agreement') is made on
E this 246day of--J.l&, 2020 (hereinafter referred as "Effective
Date") amongst
{, The Jeypore Siugar Compaoy Limited- in Liquidation
("JEYSUCO "), a company incorporated under.the provisions
of the Companies Act, 1956, and an existing company under
the Companies Act, 2013, and having its registered office at
Ramakrishna Buildings, 239, Anna salai, Chennai 600006 IN,

L_:: _. _:._?
 27
25

22

|2.PARA IV.IBBI OWN GUIDELINE:

N. Uftich was also confrmed bv Indian Institute of Insolvencv Professionals of ICAI

UPD in Background Guidance 0n Valuation Process under Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code,2016 (Page 30 of Guidance Report)

I3.WHETHER VALUATION REPORT BE SHARED WITH EX.

MAI\AGEMENT? PARA 11

1l- Whether Voluation report be shared with ex-

management?
(a) There is no specific provision for not sharing the capy of
valuation report with exmanagem ent,
hotsever the intent of code is to maximize the value and all
concernetl
persons shall be given sn access to the docament as the ssme
is crucialfor deciding
the worth of the Corltorote Debtor subiect to undertetking of
confidentiolity-
(b) Also, the s-management is part cf COC even though
without the vortng rightgand
therefore access of all documents shared in the COC shall be
given to them-
Case law references: Viiay Kamar Jain. l/s- Standatd
Chartered Bank & Ors-, supreme
Court [2O19J snd Efemont Shantilcl Shah Anr- l/s- Csre
Office Ltd- NCLT, Ahmedobad
bench [2O22J-"