IBBI Suspends Soumitra Lahiri for 2 Years: SBI Voting Share Cut to Block His Replacement

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has suspended insolvency professional Soumitra Lahiri for two years after finding that, as liquidator of Manglam Fiscal Services Private Limited, he first raised and then cut State Bank of India's voting share in the stakeholders' consultation committee (SCC) in a way that stopped SBI from replacing him. The order, No. IBBI/DC/352/2026 dated 12 November 2026, was passed by the Disciplinary Committee (Whole Time Member Sandip Garg) under section 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 13 of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017.

Lahiri, registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00734/2017-2018/11232 and a professional member of the Indian Institute of Insolvency Professionals of ICAI (IIIPI), also loses his existing assignments under section 206 of the Code. The committee found breaches of Regulations 31(3), 31A(6) and 31A(11) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, and said the increase and later reduction in SBI's voting share "were motivated with an intent to prevent his replacement".

How the Manglam Fiscal Services liquidation reached the disciplinary committee

The corporate insolvency resolution process of Manglam Fiscal Services began on 3 October 2023, when the NCLT Kolkata Bench admitted SBI's application under section 7. Liquidation started on 16 January 2025 with Vasudeo Agarwal as liquidator. On 24 April 2025 the Tribunal replaced him with Lahiri, whom ARCIL had recommended at the second SCC meeting on 17 March 2025.

The Board received a complaint about Lahiri's conduct, appointed an investigating authority under section 218 of the Code, and issued a show cause notice on 30 March 2026. Lahiri replied on 13 April 2026, was heard virtually on 18 August 2026, filed further submissions on 21 August 2026 and supplied documents on 14 and 22 October 2026.

SBI's claim: ₹19.80 crore, ₹865.10 crore, then back to ₹24.39 crore

During the CIRP, SBI claimed ₹19,80,41,869 as lender to Manglam Fiscal Services as principal borrower. It made no claim then for the corporate guarantee that Manglam Fiscal Services had given for SBI's loans to a group company, Shree Mahalaxmi Corporation Private Limited (SMCPL). Once liquidation began, SBI filed Form D on 21 March 2025 for ₹865,09,94,392.48: ₹24,39,20,845.30 due from the company itself and ₹840,70,73,547.18 under the guarantee. The rest of the case turns on how that claim was admitted, three times over, and what each change did to the voting shares. The table below follows the order's own chronology.

The jump to 67.87% mattered because Regulation 31A(11) lets the SCC propose a liquidator's replacement by a vote of not less than 66%. After 21 May 2025, SBI could carry that vote on its own. After 8 July 2025, it could not even force a meeting: the first proviso to Regulation 31A(6) obliges the liquidator to convene a meeting only when members holding at least 33% ask for one.

Regulation 31(3): first revision cleared, second and third held in breach

Regulation 31(3) allows a liquidator to apply to the Adjudicating Authority to modify an entry in a list of stakeholders already filed with it, and requires him to modify the entry "in the manner directed" by the Authority. The committee read this as a fixed sequence: application first, modification after the Tribunal's direction.

On that reading, the 13 May 2025 change was not a breach. The earlier liquidator had filed no list with the Tribunal, and his 19 April 2025 email was not a list under Regulation 31. Lahiri's 13 May 2025 filing was therefore the first list, and admitting SBI at ₹24.39 crore was an original entry, not a modification. Liquidators who take over a file midway should check exactly this point: whether a list has actually been filed with the Tribunal decides whether a change needs its prior direction.

The second revision failed the test. Lahiri told all stakeholders on 21 May 2025 that SBI's claim had been recast, and ran the fourth SCC meeting on 5 June 2025 on the new shares, before his application (dated 29 May 2025) was even e-filed on 9 June 2025. The committee accepted that the Tribunal took the revised list on record on 12 June 2025, so the fifth meeting on 1 July 2025 at least ran on a list the Tribunal held.

The third revision was described as graver. Lahiri cut SBI back to ₹24.39 crore on 8 July 2025, applied to the Tribunal the next day in IA No. 1135/2025, and then held the sixth SCC meeting on 2 January 2026 and the seventh on 19 February 2026 on the reduced shares. The Tribunal never took that list on record during his tenure; the application was disposed of only on 14 October 2026, after his successor had admitted SBI's claim afresh.

Why the Moneywise NCLAT ruling did not support the cut

Lahiri said the NCLAT judgment of 3 July 2025 in Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Arunava Sikdar, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 310 of 2024, was "additional information" that justified excluding the guarantee claim. The committee disagreed on both law and facts.

In Moneywise, a ₹14.59 crore guarantee claim failed because no guarantee deed or board authorisation was produced, the guarantee was never invoked, the claim came 388 days late after the committee of creditors had approved a plan, and the same claim had been admitted in the principal borrower's CIRP without disclosure. None of that applied here. The guarantee itself was not in doubt, delay was not an issue, Lahiri had admitted the claim after verification, and nothing showed any recovery in SMCPL's process that could lead to double recovery.

The committee relied on the Supreme Court's rulings in Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India (26 March 2021), that a guarantor's liability is co-extensive with the principal borrower's, and Maitreya Doshi v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. (22 September 2022), that a creditor may proceed against both, provided the same amount is not realised twice. Moneywise, it said, did not depart from these. Even if Lahiri regarded the ruling as new information, Regulation 31(3) required him to place it before the Tribunal and wait for directions, not to modify the list first and report afterwards.

The committee also commented on his stated reservations. Lahiri had argued that SBI deliberately kept the guarantee out of the CIRP and that this was an abuse attracting section 65 of the Code. If he held that view, the order says, the proper course was to reflect it in his decision on the claim or seek the Tribunal's directions at the outset, rather than admit the claim and reverse it later.

The replacement agenda kept off the 1 July 2025 SCC meeting

On 20 June 2025, the day Lahiri issued a work order to deploy security guards at the company's Panagarh premises, SBI asked for "Replacement of Liquidator" to be added to the agenda of the fifth SCC meeting. Lahiri asked for reasons. SBI sent nine on 25 June 2025, including loss of trust, unilateral deployment of guards at a disputed property, liquidation-cost claims, use of defamatory language and litigation filed without consulting the SCC. Lahiri called them "allegations", adjourned the meeting to 1 July 2025 and sent a point-wise rebuttal on 28 June 2025.

At the 1 July 2025 meeting the proposal was not put to deliberation or vote. The minutes recorded under "any other matter" that the liquidator "declined to alter the agenda". When SBI asked on 5 July 2025 for its version to be added to the minutes, Lahiri refused on 8 July 2025, the same day he cut SBI's voting share.

The committee held that a liquidator who convenes and chairs SCC meetings "has no role in deciding whether such a proposal deserves to be considered or not". Regulation 31A(6) does not require a member to give reasons for an agenda item. The requirement to record reasons in Regulation 31A(11) applies to the SCC when it votes, and even then the liquidator cannot judge whether the reasons are sufficient. He may object before the SCC and before the Tribunal, but "the right to object, however, does not extend to keeping the proposal off the agenda", particularly on a proposal for his own replacement.

Six months without an SCC meeting

The second and third provisos to Regulation 31A(6) require the next SCC meeting within 30 days unless the SCC extends the gap, and at least one meeting in each quarter. After 1 July 2025, no meeting was held until 2 January 2026, so the quarters ending September and December 2025 passed without one. Lahiri's own minutes of the sixth meeting said he did not convene meetings because, with the process "being deliberately obstructed", a meeting "would not serve any purpose".

He cited missing books of account, untraceable promoter directors, SBI's denial of custody of the estate and unpaid liquidation costs. The committee said these were precisely the matters the SCC should have been consulted on, and that Regulation 31A(6) lets only the SCC extend the interval. The sixth meeting was called only after the Tribunal, on 18 December 2025, directed a meeting preferably within 10 days. The replacement resolution placed there drew no votes between 5 and 13 January 2026; SBI then held 5.62%.

Lahiri refused SBI's request of 21 January 2026 for another meeting because SBI held less than 33%, a position it was in only because of the third revision. After ARCIL, with 83.16%, asked for a meeting on 13 February 2026, Lahiri applied on 17 February 2026 to be relieved. The seventh SCC meeting on 19 February 2026 voted 88.78% to replace him, and the Tribunal appointed Vijender Sharma on 9 June 2026. SBI's challenge, IA No. 1259/2025, was dismissed as infructuous on 11 September 2026 after the new liquidator admitted its claim in full.

Suspension terms, effective date and existing assignments

The two-year suspension takes effect when 30 days from the date of issue expire, which falls on 12 December 2026. Copies go to the committees of creditors of every corporate debtor where Lahiri is acting, and those committees must replace him with another resolution professional or liquidator. Copies also go to IIIPI and to the Registrar of the NCLT Principal Bench.

On quantum, the committee said the lapses were "neither technical lapses nor errors of judgement" but serious departures spread across claim revision, the conduct of SCC meetings and the Liquidation Regulations, which undermine stakeholder confidence in the SCC mechanism. The same two-year term was imposed a day later in the case of IBBI's suspension of Alok Kailash Saksena over the Associate Decor CIRP, while an earlier one-year suspension dealt with resolution professional Sanjay Borad's ₹5 lakh monthly fee drawn without CoC approval.

For practising liquidators, the order sets out three working rules drawn straight from Regulations 31 and 31A. Any change to an admitted claim after a list is on the Tribunal's record goes to the Tribunal first and takes effect only as directed. A member's request to place an agenda item, including one to replace the liquidator, goes on the agenda without any test of its reasons. And the 30-day and once-a-quarter meeting cycle runs unless the SCC itself extends it.

Official source: View the official source document