Published: · Source checked:
In Deepak Kumar Goyal v. IBBI, the NCLAT preserved findings that a homebuyer authorised representative had inadequately documented participation and acted without prior instructions. It nevertheless found cancellation of his registration disproportionate. The result was a penalty remand, not exoneration or permission to ignore consultation duties. Judgment, paragraphs 84–103.
Order and precise relief
| Point | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi |
| Members | Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan and Naresh Salecha |
| Appeal | Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1736 of 2026 |
| Order date | |
| Challenged decision | IBBI disciplinary order dated 20 August 2026, Case IBBI/DC/341/2026 |
| Result | Penalty remanded to IBBI for determination within 30 days of receipt; interim protection subject to recorded restrictions |
The tribunal separated whether a contravention occurred from whether its severity justified the chosen sanction. That distinction is useful to insolvency professionals answering a disciplinary notice: mitigation does not necessarily disprove breach, and proof of breach does not by itself justify the most severe penalty. Paragraphs 94–103.
Emails proved some things, but not the extent of participation
The authorised representative relied on contemporaneous emails describing consultations with homebuyers. The NCLAT did not treat those emails as worthless. It found that they appeared to establish that consultations occurred, their dates and the substance of concerns conveyed. What remained consistently missing was the number or representative character of the homebuyers participating.
That gap mattered because the class comprised 1,428 homebuyers with 91% of the CoC voting share. A small, unrepresentative group could not safely be treated as the documented voice of that class. The tribunal distinguished minutes of the representative's own class consultations from the separate CoC minutes prepared by the Resolution Professional. Reviewing the latter did not discharge the former duty. Paragraphs 84–88 and 100.
The judgment also distinguished the absence of a prescribed format from the absence of required content. It did not impose a newly invented signed register or universal template. Its concern was a record capable of showing when consultation occurred, who participated in a meaningful sense, and what was expressed. The breach found was incomplete documentation of a consultation process that had actually occurred, rather than a finding that no consultation took place.
Calling an extension procedural did not remove the instruction requirement
The second issue concerned concurrence in short extensions for revised resolution plans on 17 and 19 March 2026. An intervening EPFO claim and the RP's administration of the timetable explained the circumstances. They did not create a unilateral exception to Section 25A(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The NCLAT held that the representative could not classify a matter as procedural and, on that basis alone, dispense with prior instructions. It also recognised that these were narrow, time-bound, RP-driven extensions rather than votes selecting a plan or distributing recoveries. Those features affected the gravity of the contravention, not its existence. Paragraphs 89–93.
The practical lesson is to document the instruction process even when a request arrives urgently. The judgment does not resolve every voting mechanism under Section 25A or prescribe a fresh notice period for all urgent consultations. It addresses the representative's conduct on the record before it.
Why cancellation was disproportionate
The tribunal considered the absence of findings of fraud, dishonesty, personal gain, collusion or demonstrated stakeholder prejudice. It also considered cooperation with IBBI and the professional's disciplinary history. Against that, it weighed the size of the represented class, the continuing documentation lapse and the absence of consultation on the two extensions.
Cancellation stood at the severe end of the graduated regulatory consequences. The NCLAT found it disproportionate to the two established contraventions and chose remand rather than fixing a substitute penalty itself. This was a reasoned assessment of this record, not a general rule that documentation failures can attract only warnings. Paragraphs 95–102.
Interim protection did not restore unrestricted freedom to take assignments
Paragraph 102 protects the appellant from operation of the challenged order until IBBI gives fresh findings. The same paragraph records his undertaking not to accept fresh assignments in the meantime. It also preserves the effect of the CoC's replacement resolution for the particular authorised-representative assignment.
Those qualifications belong beside the relief. Describing the order simply as reinstatement would conceal material limits. The IBBI was directed to determine penalty within 30 days from receipt of the order, not 30 days from the article's publication. This note does not establish the receipt date or what IBBI subsequently decided. Paragraphs 102–103.
Applying the distinction in a professional's file
Veritect's analysis of the order suggests keeping three evidentiary files distinct: the consultation record, the prior instructions supporting action, and the material relevant to proportionality. Dates and concerns alone may not show representative participation. A well-intentioned administrative response may still require instructions. Evidence of cooperation or lack of prejudice may bear on sanction without eliminating breach.
For homebuyer counsel, the useful question is whether the record makes representation verifiable. For disciplinary counsel, it is whether the proposed sanction is tied to the misconduct actually proved, while accurately preserving both adverse findings and mitigation.
Questions arising from the decision
Did the NCLAT clear the professional of both contraventions?
No. It upheld the documentation and prior-instruction contraventions while remanding the quantum of penalty. The two questions were expressly treated separately.
Did the judgment require a particular minutes-register format?
No specific universal form or signature requirement was identified. The tribunal required meaningful content, including participant information, and found the supplied record incomplete in that respect.
Could the appellant immediately accept new assignments?
The interim protection must be read with the recorded undertaking not to accept fresh assignments and the separate treatment of the existing AR replacement resolution.
Source and subsequent-treatment scope
This note was checked against the official NCLAT judgment, particularly paragraphs 84–103. It analyses the order as delivered. Targeted official-source searches did not establish later treatment or the fresh disciplinary outcome; neither absence is certified. For a live assignment or disciplinary response, obtain the subsequent case and regulatory record.