Justice Nagaprasanna to Sai Deepak: “You Are a Genius!” | Powerful Courtroom Moment

Overview

The video captures a heated courtroom exchange in which counsel argues over whether an insolvency professional’s actions should receive “immunity” under Section 233 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), despite related criminal allegations.

Core Legal Contention: Immunity vs. Alleged Collusion/Bad Faith

• Counsel frames the key issue as not whether there was a prior stay of investigation, but whether Section 233 immunity can apply when the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP/RP) allegedly acted in bad faith.
• The argument is that the IRP allegedly admitted before the regulator (IBBI) that he had engaged in collusion—and, according to counsel, this admission means Section 233 immunity should not apply.
• Counsel acknowledges “case law,” but insists the factual distinction is decisive: immunity depends on good-faith performance, and the IRP’s own admission undermines that requirement.

Evidence Highlighted from the IRP’s IBBI Response (Page References)

Counsel relies on specific parts of the record and points the bench to the following:

• Page 259

  • Presented as the IRP’s response to a 31 January 2025 notice of investigation.
  • Counsel emphasizes paragraphs where the IRP allegedly describes pressure from key parties and recounts how he felt forced/impacted in his conduct.

• Page 262

  • Counsel cites statements regarding events involving Glas/GLAS Trust and Ernst & Young (EY), including:
    • EY being appointed as process advisor/support
    • alleged insistence that EY be engaged/selected
    • threats affecting his professional ability to continue if he did not comply

• Pages 263–264

  • Counsel says the IRP “specifically states” he succumbed to GLAS’s pressure.
  • Counsel argues this supports the contention that the conduct was not in good faith.

Procedural Impact Argued (Stay and Investigation)

• Counsel argues that the stay of investigation has been continuing since 17 March 2025, extending into day-to-day proceedings.
• He claims this has hampered the investigation process and that criminal proceedings cannot be fully halted merely because civil/insolvency proceedings continue.
• Counsel also clarifies that even if the matter had traveled upward (including reference to the Supreme Court), it did not fully “sanitize” the allegations or remove grounds for continuing the stay-of-investigation debate.

Dispute Over the Factual Narrative (CoC/GLAS and Removal of RP)

Counsel asserts the RP allegedly:

• colluded with GLAS and related parties
• then removed/affected the petitioner’s position in the committee of creditors context (counsel mentions 99.8% voting share and frames GLAS as a major lender)

Counsel states:

• an NCLT application was filed
• the NCLT imposed strictures on the RP
• later removal was pursued/implemented (though these steps are said to have been challenged)

The bench indicates a preference for handling the matter efficiently through a compilation of relevant judgments and material, rather than counsel reading extensive pages during court proceedings.

Court Management / Next Steps

• The bench indicates it will hear further after a compilation is filed.
• The matter is set for further hearing on 31st at 4:00 p.m.
• Additional scheduling discussion is mentioned around 27th/28th during the exchange.

Presenters / Contributors (As Named in the Transcript)

• Justice Nagaprasanna
• Sri Udaya Holla (learned senior counsel, for the petitioner)
• Srinivas Raghavan (learned senior counsel, for the petitioner)
• Sai Deepak (learned senior counsel, for the petitioner)
• D.R. Ravi Shankar (appearing for the respondent)

Institutions Referenced in the Case Record (Not Presenters)

• NCLT
• NCLAT

Individuals / Entities Referenced

• Avinash Balakrishnan
• Ashwin Bishnoi
• Ernst & Young (EY)
• GLAS / Glas Trust
• Mr. Hola (mentioned as questioning facts)