The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi , has set aside an order by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) that cancelled the registration of Insolvency Professional (IP) Deepak Kumar Goyal. In a ruling delivered on October 14, 2026 , the appellate body determined that the penalty of cancelling the professional’s registration was disproportionate to the two established procedural contraventions , mandating that the Board revisit the disciplinary sanction within 30 days.

The disciplinary action originated from Mr. Goyal’s tenure as the Authorised Representative (AR) for a class of approximately 1,428 homebuyers during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Revital Realty Private Limited. The Board had previously found that Mr. Goyal contravened Regulation 16A(10)(i) of the CIRP Regulations by failing to maintain a formal register of minutes for his consultations with the homebuyers, and breached Section 25A(3) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , by concurring with timeline extensions for resolution plans without obtaining prior instructions from the creditors.

While the NCLAT affirmed that these contraventions were technically established, it struck down the severity of the punishment. The Tribunal observed that the Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the IBBI had failed to adequately account for the absence of malafide intent or personal gain. Emphasizing the necessity of a balanced approach in regulatory enforcement , the bench noted that the cancellation of an IP’s registration represents the most extreme end of the regulatory spectrum, which must be reserved for severe misconduct involving financial irregularities, fraud, or collusion.

As the Tribunal underscored in its judgment, “the maximum consequence available on the statutory spectrum under Regulation 13(3) is completely disproportionate to the two contraventions established on this record, each concerning the manner and completeness of the Appellant's discharge of representative and documentary functions, in circumstances devoid of any element of dishonesty, personal benefit, or demonstrated prejudice to any stakeholder.”

Procedural Gaps Versus Intentional Negligence

During the proceedings, Mr. Goyal argued that he had consistently engaged with the homebuyers, utilizing contemporaneous emails, written summaries, and meeting notes to facilitate communication with the Resolution Professional. He maintained that these records sufficiently demonstrated his active role, and that neither the Code nor the regulations stipulated a specific, mandatory format for minutes. He asserted that the absence of a document titled "minutes register" did not equate to a failure to represent the interests of the 91% voting share he held in the Committee of Creditors .

The Board, conversely, argued that the sheer size of the represented class made formal documentation an essential safeguard for transparency and accountability. It contended that informal emails, however informative, did not satisfy the rigorous standard of record-keeping required for an AR tasked with managing the interests of over a thousand homebuyers. The NCLAT agreed that the obligation under Regulation 16A(10)(i) was indeed mandatory, noting that the Appellant’s failure to identify the representative character of attendees at his preliminary consultations constituted a significant, though non-fraudulent, procedural shortcoming .

Justifying Timely Administrative Decisions

The second charge involved Mr. Goyal’s concurrence with timeline extensions for Prospective Resolution Applicants (PRAs) in March 2026 . Mr. Goyal explained that the decision was a narrow, administrative response necessitated by the sudden receipt of a statutory claim from the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) . He argued that he had no choice but to support a limited, two-day extension to ensure that statutory dues were properly integrated into the resolution plans, avoiding a collapse of the process.

The Tribunal acknowledged the validity of this context, finding that the extension was driven by the Resolution Professional’s requirements and concerned with protecting legitimate statutory dues . The bench noted, “We need to appreciate the narrow, time-bound, administrative character of the extension in its Resolution Professional-driven origin and further its connection to a statutory due claim of EPFO.” While the Tribunal clarified that the word "always" in Section 25A(3) allows for no unilateral exceptions by an AR, it distinguished this administrative action from a substantive commercial decision that might alter voting rights or creditor entitlements.

Path Forward for Disciplinary Review

Following the judgment, Mr. Goyal has been granted interim protection, contingent upon his commitment to refrain from accepting any new assignments as an Insolvency Professional during the review period. The ongoing CIRP of Revital Realty Private Limited will proceed under the management of a replacement resolution professional, as previously determined by the Committee of Creditors .

The Tribunal’s decision to remand the matter rather than substitute the penalty itself reflects a commitment to established administrative law principles , allowing the IBBI to reconsider the case with the benefit of the NCLAT’s observations on proportionality . By requiring a fresh, reasoned order within a 30-day window, the Appellate Tribunal has underscored that while procedural compliance is the bedrock of the insolvency framework, regulatory consequences must remain tethered to the actual gravity of the misconduct demonstrated, ensuring that professional careers are not prematurely terminated for administrative lapses devoid of systemic prejudice.