NCLT Mumbai, January 06, 2026 : The National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has rejected an application filed by a suspended director seeking disclosure of valuation reports and other confidential records generated during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, holding that such disclosure would undermine the sanctity and integrity of the insolvency framework.
The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Judicial Member Mohan Prasad Tiwari and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati in IA (IBC) No. 3078 of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 144/MB/2021, titled Abhay Narhar Kadam vs Vakati Balasubramanyam Reddy. The Tribunal categorically held that valuation reports are confidential documents and cannot be shared with persons who are themselves prospective or competing resolution applicants, as such disclosure would be contrary to settled legal principles.
The application was filed by Abhay Narhar Kadam, a suspended director of Megi Agro Chem Limited, under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. He sought deferment of the hearing on approval of the resolution plan submitted by Arainfra Projects Private Limited and directions to the Resolution Professional to furnish copies of the approved resolution plan, valuation reports, information memorandum, expressions of interest, and minutes of meetings of the Committee of Creditors.
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of Megi Agro Chem Limited had commenced in August 2022 on a petition filed by Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Limited under Section 7 of the Code. The applicant alleged that non-disclosure of valuation reports and other documents violated transparency requirements and prevented him from assessing whether the resolution plan satisfied statutory benchmarks relating to fair value and liquidation value.
Opposing the plea, the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors argued that members of the erstwhile management, including persons connected with the applicant, had either submitted or sought to submit resolution plans during the CIRP. It was submitted that sharing valuation reports and commercially sensitive information with such persons would confer an unfair advantage, distort competition, and defeat the objective of value maximisation under the Code. The respondents also pointed out that earlier challenges to the resolution plan and the conduct of the CIRP had already been dismissed by both the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal.
After examining the record, the Tribunal noted that the applicant and other suspended directors had participated in several meetings of the Committee of Creditors and that notices and minutes of such meetings had been duly circulated. While acknowledging that suspended directors are entitled to attend CoC meetings and receive certain information, the Bench clarified that this right is not absolute. It does not extend to unrestricted access to confidential documents, particularly where the suspended director or his associates are prospective or competing resolution applicants.
Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the Appellate Tribunal, the NCLT observed that valuation reports are prepared exclusively to assist the Committee of Creditors in taking informed commercial decisions. They are not meant to be shared with persons whose interests may conflict with the resolution process. The Tribunal found no illegality, material irregularity, or breach of mandatory provisions of the Code or the CIRP Regulations that would warrant interference under Section 60(5).
Accordingly, the application was dismissed, with the Tribunal holding that a suspended director who is also a prospective resolution applicant has no right to seek disclosure of valuation reports or other confidential CIRP documents. No costs were imposed.
Appearance: For the Applicant – Advocate Smit Shah; for the Respondents – Advocates Pulkitesh Dutt Tiwari, A. Abhiraj Ray, and Shivesh Kaushik | Cause Title: Abhay Narhar Kadam vs Vakati Balasubramanyam Reddy | Case Number: IA (IBC) No. 3078 of 2025 in CP (IB) No. 144/MB/2021 | Coram: Judicial Member Mohan Prasad Tiwari and Technical Member Charanjeet Singh Gulati
