Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With IBBI Action Against RP In Anil Ambani-Linked Companies' CIRPs

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal's (NCLAT) order denying interim relief to resolution professional Ritesh Prakash Adatiya.

He had challenged the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India's (IBBI) decision to cancel his registration over alleged lapses in handling the corporate insolvency resolution processes (CIRPs) of three Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies.

On July 20, 2026, the IBBI's Disciplinary Committee cancelled Adatiya's registration and barred him from continuing his existing assignments. It found that he had failed to identify potential avoidance transactions, disclose material information and file the requisite CIRP forms and cost disclosures.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana declined to interfere with the matter, observing that the challenge was pending before the NCLAT and that Adatiya could raise all his arguments before the appellate tribunal.

“The matter is pending before the NCLAT. We are not inclined to interfere. Raise all your arguments there.”, the Court said.

Appearing for Adatiya, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul challenged the treatment of an amendment permitting the issuance of a show-cause notice on the basis of available material as merely clarificatory.

He argued that under the earlier framework, an investigation had to be conducted and a report submitted before a show cause notice could be issued and the matter placed before the disciplinary committee.

Kaul submitted that the jurisdictional objections raised by his client had been recorded in the impugned order but had not been addressed. He also pointed out that the issue concerning the amendment was already pending before another Bench of the Supreme Court, which had issued notice.

“The amendment cannot be treated as clarificatory. I have prepared a chart showing the pre-amendment and post amendment positions. This issue is already pending before another bench of this Court, which has issued notice.”, Kaul said.

Kaul further submitted that the show cause notice had been issued and the disciplinary committee constituted before the amendment, although the hearing took place afterwards. He argued that the earlier and amended provisions needed to be examined in light of the requirement for a detailed investigation.

The CJI questioned the argument concerning vested rights, observing:

“When you speak of powers, there is no vested right of a person being investigated. The amendment creates an additional basis for initiating a show cause notice. Vesting a power does not take away your rights.”

Kaul also disputed suggestions that Adatiya was involved in an alleged pre-planned insolvency strategy concerning companies belonging to the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group. He argued that his client was the resolution professional and could not be held responsible merely because the corporate insolvency proceedings were alleged to have been pre-planned.

“Merely because an Anil Ambani company is involved and it is described as a pre-planned insolvency, what have I done? I am the resolution professional. If the insolvency was pre-planned, I had nothing to do with that.”, Kaul said.

Appearing for the IBBI, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan alleged that resolution professionals had been used in multiple insolvency proceedings involving Anil Ambani Group companies. She referred to other pending matters and allegations that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) had been used as a device to facilitate the removal of substantial sums of money.

Divan argued that similar issues had arisen in several other cases and contended that Adatiya's challenge should not be permitted to leave the legal issue open for other resolution professionals to raise later.

Kaul countered that the allegations against his client concerned the discharge of his statutory duties, including whether avoidance applications had been filed. He submitted that he had appointed a transaction auditor and that the relevant issues could be examined before the NCLAT.

He reiterated that the allegation was not that Adatiya had participated in a pre-planned insolvency strategy, but that he had allegedly failed to discharge his duties as a resolution professional. Kaul requested permission to raise all available issues, including jurisdiction, before the appellate tribunal.

The CJI granted the request.