IBBI Disciplinary Committee Order in Re: Hitesh Goel, Insolvency Professional

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, through its Disciplinary Committee, in its order dated 30 March 2026, examined allegations against Insolvency Professional Hitesh Goel in relation to the CIRP of Supertech Limited, particularly the Eco Village II project, and reaffirmed the strict compliance obligations imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Allegations

The CIRP, admitted on 25 March 2022, evolved into a project-wise resolution process following NCLAT directions, with Eco Village II treated separately. The RP argued that this constituted a “test process” outside the conventional CIRP framework. The Disciplinary Committee rejected this contention, holding that statutory duties under the Code and CIRP Regulations continued to apply in full force. The primary allegation concerned deficiencies in the Information Memorandum, including non-disclosure of audited financial statements and incomplete project-specific data. The RP relied on a Virtual Data Room to supplement disclosures; however, the Committee found no verifiable evidence that such information was available to stakeholders at the relevant time. It emphasized that the IM must be substantially self-contained and enable informed decision-making by resolution applicants.

Further contraventions included failure to file the IM with CIRP Form-3, delay in conducting the first CoC meeting, and a substantial delay in filing avoidance applications. The RP attributed these lapses to practical constraints such as data complexity, judicial stays, and reliance on external professionals. The Committee rejected these explanations, holding that statutory timelines, even if directory, impose a binding standard of diligence.

Findings and Implications

The Committee concluded that the RP failed to meet the required standards of transparency, timeliness, and consistency. It clarified that procedural modifications by appellate authorities do not dilute statutory obligations and that responsibility for compliance rests solely with the Resolution Professional.

The order reinforces that incomplete disclosures and delayed actions can undermine value maximization and distort the resolution process. It thus underscores a strict regulatory approach, emphasizing that insolvency professionals must maintain high standards of accountability even in complex, non-traditional CIRP structures.