NCLAT Upholds Professional Integrity, Refuses to Expunge Remarks but Clarifies No Adverse Impact on Insolvency Professional

New Delhi – In a significant ruling that underscores the delicate balance between judicial oversight and the protection of professional reputation, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has clarified that observations made by a lower tribunal regarding an Insolvency Professional's alleged conflict of interest should not be considered adverse to his conduct or character. The decision comes amidst another key development in corporate law, with the Central Government re-appointing former Supreme Court Justice Ashok Bhushan as the Chairperson of the NCLAT, signaling a continued focus on experienced leadership in India's evolving insolvency regime.

The NCLAT's order, dated November 3, 2025, provides crucial relief to Insolvency Professional (IP) Pulkit Gupta, who had appealed against remarks made by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench. The NCLT's observations had questioned his independence and led to his rejection as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) in the insolvency proceedings against Gensol Engineering Limited.

---

The Genesis of the Dispute: Conflict of Interest Allegations

The case originated from an NCLT order on June 13, 2025, which admitted Gensol Engineering Ltd. and its group company, Gensol EV Lease Ltd., into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on an application by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA).

During the admission proceedings, the corporate debtors (Gensol) raised strong objections to the proposed appointment of Pulkit Gupta as the IRP. They alleged a conflict of interest, citing his past professional associations with entities linked to the Gensol group, namely Ernst & Young LLP and Ernst & Young Restructuring LLP. Gensol argued this prior relationship compromised the independence mandated by Regulation 3(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

The NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench, concurred with the corporate debtor's objections. It observed that the existence of non-disclosure agreements pointed to a confidential professional relationship that should have been disclosed. Citing judicial precedents, the NCLT held that failure to disclose this link constituted a procedural defect. Consequently, it rejected Gupta's appointment and, "to avoid conflict of interest," appointed another professional, Keshav Khaneja, from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) panel.

The Appeal: A Plea for Professional Reputation

In his appeal before the NCLAT, Pulkit Gupta, represented by Senior Advocate Abhijeet Sinha, took a nuanced stance. He clarified that he was not challenging the appointment of the new IRP or seeking his own reinstatement. Instead, his appeal was limited to a plea to expunge the NCLT's adverse remarks, which he contended could unjustly tarnish his professional standing.

A key argument advanced was the violation of the principles of natural justice. Gupta submitted that the NCLT had made its observations without affording him an opportunity to respond to the conflict-of-interest allegations. He argued that these remarks, made ex-parte, should not carry any adverse implications for his character or professional integrity.

“Any observation made in the order adverse to the appellant be not considered to be any adverse observation against the appellant for any purpose.” - NCLAT Bench

NCLAT's Prudent Clarification

The NCLAT bench, comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra, acknowledged the procedural lapse. It noted that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) had indeed not provided Gupta with an opportunity to address the objections before recording its observations.

While declining to interfere with the NCLT's primary order admitting the insolvency petitions against Gensol, the appellate tribunal provided a crucial clarification. The bench held that any remarks in the NCLT’s order should not be interpreted as conclusive findings on Gupta’s professional conduct. The NCLAT observed: “Any observation made in the order adverse to the appellant be not considered to be any adverse observation against the appellant for any purpose.”

Elaborating further, the bench added: “Any observation made by the NCLT on the conduct or character of the Appellant shall not be taken as a final observation; the disposal of this appeal will be no reflection on the character or conduct of the appellant as such.”

This ruling effectively neutralizes the potential harm of the NCLT's remarks without formally expunging them, thereby protecting Gupta's reputation. The decision is a vital precedent for insolvency professionals who may face similar situations where their independence is questioned without a fair hearing. It reinforces that judicial observations, particularly those impacting professional standing, must be made with caution and adherence to due process.

Justice Ashok Bhushan's Re-appointment and the Road Ahead for NCLAT

The ruling was delivered under the leadership of Justice Ashok Bhushan, whose tenure as NCLAT Chairperson has been extended by the Central Government until July 4, 2026. An order issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions on November 7, 2025, confirmed that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) had approved his re-appointment.

Justice Bhushan, a former Supreme Court judge, was first appointed to lead the NCLAT on November 8, 2021. His tenure has been marked by several landmark judgments that have shaped key aspects of jurisprudence under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the Companies Act, and the Competition Act. His re-appointment is widely seen as a move to ensure stability and continuity in a tribunal that plays a pivotal role in India's corporate and commercial legal framework.

“The Central Government has re-appointed former Supreme Court judge, Justice Ashok Bhushan, as the Chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The re-appointment will be effective from the date he assumes charge and will continue till July 4, 2026, when he attains the age of 70 years.”

Legal Implications and Takeaways for Practitioners

1. Protection Against Ex-Parte Remarks: The NCLAT's order serves as a shield for IPs and other professionals against adverse judicial remarks made without a proper hearing. It establishes a pathway to seek clarification and mitigate reputational damage even if the remarks are not formally expunged.

2. Importance of Disclosure and Independence: The underlying case reiterates the critical importance of independence for IPs. While the NCLAT protected Gupta from adverse findings, the NCLT's initial decision highlights the high level of scrutiny applied to any prior association between an IP and a corporate debtor. Practitioners must exercise extreme caution and ensure full disclosure to avoid such challenges.

3. Natural Justice in Tribunal Proceedings: The decision implicitly critiques the NCLT's failure to provide the IP an opportunity to be heard. It reinforces that tribunals, while managing heavy caseloads, must adhere to the fundamental principles of natural justice, especially when their observations can have severe professional consequences.

4. Continuity in Insolvency Jurisprudence: The extension of Justice Bhushan's term ensures that the NCLAT will continue to benefit from his extensive experience. For the legal community, this signals predictability and a consistent judicial approach in the appellate forum for corporate insolvency matters, which is crucial for building investor confidence.

As India's insolvency law continues to mature, cases like Pulkit Gupta v. Gensol Engineering refine the procedural nuances and ethical standards expected of professionals. Coupled with stable leadership at the NCLAT, these developments are set to further strengthen the institutional framework governing corporate India.