NCLAT Refuses To Expunge NCLT Ahmedabad’s Remarks Against IRP Pulkit Gupta; Clarifies Observations Not Adverse To His Conduct
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has refused to expunge remarks made by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench against Insolvency Professional Pulkit Gupta in its order admitting insolvency proceedings against Gensol Engineering Limited and its group company Gensol EV Lease Limited. However, the Appellate Tribunal clarified that such remarks shall not be considered adverse to the conduct or character of the insolvency professional for any purpose.
A bench comprising Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Barun Mitra, in its order dated November 3, 2025, held that the comments made by the Adjudicating Authority concerning Gupta’s past professional association with Gensol would not affect his reputation or future engagements as an insolvency professional.
Background
The appeals arose from the NCLT Ahmedabad’s order dated June 13, 2025, which admitted corporate insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP) against Gensol Engineering Ltd. and Gensol EV Lease Ltd. on an application filed by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA). The NCLT, while admitting the insolvency petitions, had rejected the appointment of Pulkit Gupta as Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) due to concerns raised by the corporate debtors regarding an alleged conflict of interest. Instead, it appointed Keshav Khaneja as the IRP.
Objections Before the NCLT
During the admission proceedings, Gensol had objected to Gupta’s nomination as IRP on the ground that he was allegedly associated with the Gensol group through Ernst & Young LLP and Ernst & Young Restructuring LLP, entities with which he had professional links. The corporate debtor argued that such prior association violated Regulation 3(1) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which mandates that an IRP must be independent of the corporate debtor.
The NCLT accepted this contention and observed that the existence of a prior professional relationship between entities linked to Gupta and Gensol raised concerns about his independence and eligibility. It further noted that documents such as non-disclosure agreements indicated a confidential professional relationship, which required disclosure. Referring to judicial precedents, the NCLT held that the failure to disclose such a relationship constituted a procedural defect under Section 7(3)(b) of the IBC. Consequently, it directed that the IRP should be appointed from the IBBI panel list “to avoid conflict of interest.”
Submissions Before the NCLAT
Before the Appellate Tribunal, Pulkit Gupta, represented by Senior Advocate Abhijeet Sinha, clarified that he was not challenging the appointment of another IRP nor seeking to be reinstated. His limited plea was to expunge the adverse remarks made by the NCLT that might potentially affect his professional standing. He contended that the NCLT’s observations were made without giving him an opportunity to respond to the objections raised by the corporate debtor, and hence, they should not carry any adverse connotation regarding his character or professional integrity.
NCLAT’s Observations
The NCLAT noted that the Adjudicating Authority had indeed not given Gupta any opportunity to address the objections before making its observations. Recognizing that the appellant did not wish to pursue his appointment as IRP, the bench held that there was no need to interfere with the NCLT’s admission order. However, it clarified that any remarks made in the NCLT’s order should not be interpreted as adverse or conclusive findings on Gupta’s professional conduct. The bench 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.” It further 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.”
While the NCLAT declined to interfere with the NCLT’s order admitting the insolvency petitions against Gensol Engineering Ltd. and Gensol EV Lease Ltd., it clarified and protected the reputation of the insolvency professional by stating that the remarks in the NCLT’s order would not be treated as adverse to his conduct or character. Accordingly, both appeals were disposed of without modification of the original order.
Appearance
For Appeallant: Senior Advocate Abhijeet Sinha, with advocate Prateek Khanna, Sanskriti Dixit and Heena Kochar.
Cause Title: Pulkit Gupta v Keshav Khaneja, IRP Gensol Engineering Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1335 of 2025 & I.A. No. 5216 of 2025
Coram: Chairperson Justice Ashok Bhushan, Technical Member Barun Mitra
