Gujarat High Court grants interim relief to IP against IBBI disciplinary order

This document contains a High Court of Gujarat order granting interim relief to an Insolvency Professional (IP) against a disciplinary order by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), alongside the IBBI's underlying disciplinary order that found the IP violated regulations regarding asset valuation and fraudulent initiation of insolvency proceedings.

Who it concerns: Shri Mohit Bipinchandra Adatiya (Petitioner/Insolvency Professional), the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI/Respondent), and the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.

What the Board found or ordered

• The High Court of Gujarat issued notice returnable on 3rd November 2026 and granted ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 45(K) of the petition.
• The IBBI Disciplinary Committee disposed of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 13.03.2026, finding that the IP failed to take steps despite information pointing towards syndicated fraudulent initiation of proceedings in the matters of Slimline Realty Private Limited and Avocado Realty Private Limited.
• The IBBI found that the IP failed to ensure value maximization, noting resolution values of approximately 4% and 3.5% against total admitted claims for the respective corporate debtors.
• The IBBI noted that the IP failed to make a determination regarding fraudulent transactions (PUFE) as mandated by Regulation 35A of the CIRP Regulations, relying instead on transaction auditor observations without independent due diligence.
• The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice was erroneously issued by a Deputy General Manager of the Bank and that an IBBI member involved in the investigation sat on the Disciplinary Committee, violating Regulation 3(1) of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017.

Also in the document

• The petitioner cited a coordinate Bench order in Special Civil Application No. 11944 of 2025, where similar relief was granted in an almost identical situation.
• The IBBI order notes that both corporate debtors shared a common address, had no functioning business activity, and were initiated by the same financial creditor (RMOL Engineering and Offshore Limited) with the same SRA and valuers.
• The document includes a truncated section of the IBBI order where the finding regarding the IP's failure to bring heightened scrutiny is cut off.