In the matter of Mr. A. Arumugam, Insolvency Professional

Last updated: 07 January 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

This order from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) Disciplinary Committee addresses allegations against Mr. A. Arumugam, an Insolvency Professional (IP). The case concerns his role as Resolution Professional (RP) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of M/s RRP Housing Private Limited. The IBBI issued a Show Cause Notice alleging contraventions of various sections of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and related regulations. Mr. Arumugam provided submissions in his defence, explaining his actions and the challenges faced during the CIRP.

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (Disciplinary Committee) No. IBBI/DC/63/2021 5th January, 2021 Order In the matter of Mr. A. Arumugam, Insolvency Professional (IP) under section 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 11 of the Insolvency and Bank

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Notice & Circular

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?

No Ads
WhatsApp Community
Daily E-Newsletter
Unlimited Notice & Circular Access
Profile Visitors
Link Social Profiles
Featured Job Posts
Pro Badge
Expert GST Guidance
Unlimited Forum Replies
Download Content in PDF

1 Year PLAN

1999

(Excl. of GST ₹359)

BEST VALUE

2 Years PLAN

3499

(Excl. of GST ₹629)

3 Months PLAN

999

(Excl. of GST ₹179)

View all CCI PRO benfits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

FAQ :

Mr. A. Arumugam is an Insolvency Professional (IP) registered with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) and a Professional Member of the Insolvency Professional Agency of the Institute of Cost Accountants of India.

The company involved in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was M/s RRP Housing Private Limited.

The allegations included failure to prepare the Information Memorandum due to issues accessing company records, failure to preserve records as required, not providing documents for verification of operational creditors' claims, and failing to conduct a Committee of Creditors meeting after homebuyers were recognised as financial creditors.

Mr. Arumugam argued that he made efforts to access records, but faced non-cooperation from ex-directors and issues with the company's office being sealed by CMDA. He also contended that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had acknowledged his efforts.

Mr. Arumugam's counsel argued that Regulation 39A, which requires preserving records, was inserted after the CIRP proceedings for this company concluded, and therefore, it should not apply retrospectively.

The provided text details the allegations and submissions but does not state the final order or decision of the Disciplinary Committee.