IBBI Disciplinary Committee Order in Re: Jalesh Kumar Grover, Insolvency Professional

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, through its Disciplinary Committee, in its order dated 30 March 2026, suspended the registration of Insolvency Professional Jalesh Kumar Grover for a period of one year for non-compliance with statutory obligations relating to treatment of belated claims under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The order reinforces the procedural rigor required in handling claims that fall outside prescribed timelines.

Allegations

The CIRP of Grandstar Realty Private Limited was admitted on 26 September 2023, with Mr. Grover acting as Interim Resolution Professional and later as Resolution Professional. The core issue arose from the handling of a claim submitted by Anant Raj Limited, a related party of the corporate debtor. Although the claim was initially received on 6 May 2024, it remained incomplete due to absence of supporting documents, which were furnished only on 5 September 2024. The claim was thereafter verified and included in the list of creditors dated 5 November 2024.

Crucially, this verification occurred after issuance of the Request for Resolution Plan and beyond the 90-day statutory window under Regulation 12. Accordingly, the claim qualified as a belated claim requiring compliance with Regulation 13(1B) and 13(1C). However, the Resolution Professional failed to place the claim before the Committee of Creditors for its recommendation and did not seek condonation of delay from the Adjudicating Authority. Instead, the claim was admitted unilaterally, with only an email intimation to stakeholders.

Findings and Legal Implications

The Disciplinary Committee rejected the defence that timeliness should be assessed based on the date of initial receipt of the claim. It clarified that a claim cannot be treated as validly submitted unless accompanied by requisite supporting documents. Therefore, the effective date for determining delay is the date on which a complete claim is received. On this basis, the claim of Anant Raj Limited was held to be belated and subject to the mandatory procedural safeguards under Regulation 13.

The Committee further held that disclosure of a claim as “under verification” in the Virtual Data Room does not substitute statutory compliance. Nor does the obligation of due diligence dilute the requirement to follow procedural mandates governing belated claims. The failure to place the claim before the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority was found to directly impact the transparency and legitimacy of the resolution process.

In view of these findings, the Disciplinary Committee concluded that the Resolution Professional had contravened the Code and CIRP Regulations, particularly in relation to claim verification and procedural compliance. The order underscores that belated claims must be subjected to strict statutory scrutiny, and any deviation from prescribed processes can undermine creditor rights and the integrity of the insolvency framework.