Complaint Against members Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, and Shri Anil Raj Chellan, Alleges Selective Protection, Fact-Twisting, Judicial Favouritism and Nexus Between Bench Members and Select Advocates
Recent CBI Bribery Probe, Arrest of Deputy Registrar, Alleged Attempts to Influence Tribunal Proceedings and Investigation into Wider Corruption Networks Cast Shadow Over NCLT Mumbai’s Institutional Integrity
Mumbai: A complaint seeking disciplinary action, removal from office, and sanction for prosecution has been filed against Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial), and Shri Anil Raj Chellan, Member (Technical), of the NCLT Mumbai Bench. The complaint, filed by Advocate Nicky Pokar, a well-known legal activist and advocate associated with several public-interest and judicial accountability initiatives, alleges wilful disregard of binding Supreme Court precedents, selective protection extended to certain litigants and advocates, and failure to act upon serious, record-based allegations of fraud upon the Court, suppression of material facts, concealment of pending proceedings, and abuse of judicial process. According to the complaint, the impugned conduct reflects a deliberate departure from settled legal principles and has raised serious concerns regarding judicial accountability, institutional integrity, and adherence to the rule of law within the insolvency adjudicatory framework.
The complaint challenges the order dated 13.05.2026 passed in CONT.A. (IBC)/10(MB)2026 in C.P. (IB)/4469(MB)2019. According to the complainant, despite detailed pleadings, documentary evidence, and record-based allegations concerning suppression of material facts, concealment of pending proceedings, non-disclosure of binding orders, and fraud upon the Tribunal, the Bench failed to adjudicate the core issues requiring determination. Instead, the complaint alleges that the order was crafted in a manner that effectively protected and benefited the accused litigant and Senior Counsel facing those allegations, while simultaneously discouraging and penalising the complainant for bringing the alleged misconduct to the notice of the Tribunal. The complaint contends that the impugned order discloses a prima facie case of fact-twisting, deliberate diversion from the real controversy, wilful disregard of binding Supreme Court precedents and settled legal principles governing fraud, suppression and abuse of process, thereby undermining the purity, integrity and credibility of insolvency adjudication.
The Rs. 27 crore claw-back controversy
At the heart of the complaint lies IA No. 517/2026, through which PNB Housing Finance sought a coercive claw-back of approximately ₹27 crore from UTI Employees Housing Society. The amount had accrued to the Society upon invocation of a bank guarantee on account of the alleged non-performance of a construction contract by Vijay Machinder and Ornate Spaces — entities whose flat purchasers have reportedly been awaiting possession of their homes for nearly a decade.
According to the complainant, the claw-back claim advanced by PNB Housing Finance was wholly unsustainable in law and could survive only by relying upon orders allegedly obtained through fraud practised upon the NCLT. The complaint alleges that members of the UTI Employees Housing Society have been subjected to a systematic attempt to deprive them of their valuable property rights through insolvency proceedings allegedly engineered for the benefit of PNB Housing Finance and other lenders, who are alleged to have been active participants in or beneficiaries of the underlying fraud.
The complaint asserts that it was an undisputed matter of record before the NCLT that the land forming the subject matter of the dispute never belonged to Ornate Spaces, the borrower entity of Vijay Machinder. According to the complainant, the entire edifice of the lenders’ claim stood vitiated by forged and fabricated documents, a position allegedly reflected in materials collected by the Enforcement Directorate as well as findings recorded in proceedings before the Special PMLA Court.
The complaint further alleges that Vijay Machinder procured loans running into several hundred crores from PNB Housing Finance on the basis of fraudulent documentation, including forged signatures purportedly attributed to office bearers of the UTI Employees Housing Society. It is pointed out that criminal proceedings were initiated against him, resulting in his arrest, though he was subsequently granted bail.
More significantly, the complaint alleges that court records disclose that officials of PNB Housing Finance and Resolution Professional Mr. Jayesh Sangarajka were fully aware of the forged and fraudulent nature of the underlying loan documents, yet failed to make a candid disclosure of these facts before the NCLT and instead proceeded on the basis of claims allegedly founded upon tainted documentation.
The complaint also refers to the involvement of Advocate Nausher Kohli in earlier stages of the proceedings. According to the complainant, the record reveals a recurring pattern whereby serious allegations of fraud, suppression of material facts, concealment of pending proceedings, and misleading of the Tribunal were allegedly ignored or diluted, resulting in what is described as adjudicatory indulgence being extended to favoured litigants and their counsel rather than strict scrutiny being applied to allegations striking at the purity of the judicial process itself.
The Legal Duty to Reject Petitions Tainted by Suppression — And the Consequences of Failing to Do So
A central plank of the complaint is that the controversy transcends the facts of the present dispute and strikes at a foundational principle governing the administration of justice. The complaint asserts that whenever allegations of suppression of material facts, concealment of pending proceedings, non-disclosure of binding judicial orders, fraud upon the Court, perjury, or abuse of process are supported by material available on record against any litigant, advocate, Senior Advocate, Resolution Professional, financial institution, or other participant in judicial proceedings, it becomes the mandatory duty of every Court, Tribunal, and judicial or quasi-judicial authority to first examine such allegations and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
According to the complaint, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court repeatedly mandates that no litigant is entitled to obtain judicial relief by suppressing material facts or misleading the Court. Equally, no advocate, regardless of status or designation, is entitled to immunity where material exists demonstrating suppression, concealment, distortion of facts, or abuse of the judicial process. The complaint contends that in such circumstances, the Court or Tribunal is duty-bound not merely to reject the relief sought but also to initiate appropriate proceedings for contempt, perjury, abuse of process, and such other action as may be warranted in law. Further, where advocates are found to have participated in such conduct, the concerned judicial authority is expected to make an appropriate reference to the Bar Council for disciplinary proceedings. Reliance has been placed upon Sundar v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 310; ABCD v. Union of India, (2020) 2 SCC 52; Ujwala J. Patil v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5259; and R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407.
The complaint alleges that despite detailed pleadings, documentary material, and binding precedents being placed on record regarding alleged suppression of material proceedings and orders, the impugned order failed to address the threshold issue and instead diverted attention to collateral considerations. According to the complainant, such failure amounts to a serious dereliction of judicial duty and results in effective protection being extended to persons accused of polluting the judicial process.
Complaint Alleges Liability for Ignoring Binding Precedents
The complaint further relies upon a series of Supreme Court and High Court judgments which, according to the complainant, leave no room for doubt that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities are constitutionally bound under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India to faithfully follow binding precedents and settled principles of law.
According to the complaint, where a judicial authority deliberately ignores binding precedents, refuses to act against prima facie established suppression, fraud, perjury, or abuse of process, and thereby shields an accused litigant or favoured advocate from the legal consequences of such conduct, the authority itself may attract serious legal consequences.
The complaint specifically alleges that a judicial or quasi-judicial authority that passes orders in deliberate disregard of binding law, particularly where the effect is to protect a party accused of suppression, fraud, perjury, or misleading the Court, may render itself liable under Sections 2(b) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, apart from attracting offences under Sections 166, 218 and 219 of the Indian Penal Code and the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, wherever the requisite ingredients are established.
PART III — THE SUPREME COURT’S SETTLED MANDATE ON THE DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND CRIMINAL AND DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY OF ADVOCATES — INCLUDING SENIOR ADVOCATES
The Complainant submits that the duties of Advocates — including Senior Advocates — to the Court, and the legal consequences that flow from their breach, are not matters of professional aspiration but binding mandates of law, settled by a long and unbroken line of Supreme Court authority. The law, as summarised below, is clear: an Advocate who suppresses material facts, makes false statements on oath or before the Court, misleads the Court, or conspires to obstruct the course of justice does not merely commit a professional wrong — he commits a criminal offence and renders himself liable simultaneously to (i) prosecution under the law of perjury; (ii) contempt proceedings; and (iii) disciplinary action by the Bar Council up to suspension or cancellation of his certificate of practice.
The settled legal position emerging from the judgments in Lal Bahadur Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 6 SCC 441; State of Orissa v. Nalinikanta Muduli, (2004) 7 SCC 19; Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 432; E.S. Reddi v. Chief Secretary, Government of A.P., (1987) 3 SCC 258; Heena Nikhil Dharia v. Kokilaben Kirtikumar Nayak, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9859; P.V.R.S. Manikumar v. Krishna Reddy, 1999 SCC OnLine Mad 107; H.S. Bedi v. National Highways Authority of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 432; Baduvan Kunhi v. K.M. Abdulla, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 23602; Silloo Danjishaw Mistri v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 3180; Ashok Kumar Sarogi v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 3400; Ranbir Singh v. State, 1990 (3) Crimes 207; Ahmad Ashraf, Vakil v. State, 1926 SCC OnLine All 365; M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand, 1984 Supp SCC 571; K. Rama Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 SCC OnLine AP 1210; Kamlakar Bhavsar, 2002 ALL MR (Cri.) 2640; Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. ICI India Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 74; Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu High Court of Gujarat, 2026 INSC 470; R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, High Court of Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407; R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106; Court on its Own Motion v. State & Ors., 2009 Cri LJ 677; and Yatin Narendra Oza v. High Court of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1004, is that an advocate who pollutes the stream of justice cannot seek protection behind the privilege of his profession.
These judgments consistently emphasise that the legal profession is not a licence to mislead the Court but a solemn public trust. An advocate who knowingly suppresses material facts, withholds binding orders, advances false pleas, participates in fraud upon the Court, or assists a litigant in obtaining orders through deception commits a grave wrong not merely against an opposing party but against the justice delivery system itself. Such conduct strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law and warrants stern judicial, disciplinary and, where necessary, criminal action.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that Courts must deal firmly with advocates who abuse their position to obstruct justice, manipulate proceedings, or secure orders by unfair means. Failure to take action against such misconduct encourages abuse of the judicial process and erodes public confidence in the administration of justice. Consequently, whenever credible material discloses misconduct by an advocate, the Court is not only empowered but duty-bound to consider initiation of appropriate contempt proceedings, perjury action, and reference to the Bar Council for disciplinary measures in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court of India, in a long and consistent line of decisions, has imposed upon advocates — and with particular force upon Senior Advocates, by reason of the elevated designation they carry and the heightened trust the court places in them — a set of non-negotiable duties that go to the very integrity of the adversarial system. These duties, as distilled from the catena of Supreme Court decisions on the subject, mandate the following without exception:
First, an advocate including Senior Advocate — must never withhold from the court a binding precedent that is directly relevant to the matter before it, even if that precedent operates against the interests of his own client. The duty of candour to the court is superior to the duty of advocacy for the client. Where these duties conflict, candour prevails.
Second, an advocate must never cite before a court a judgment that has been overruled, declared per incuriam, or superseded by a larger bench — and must never advance arguments that are contrary to binding precedents of the Supreme Court. This prohibition applies whether the misleading of the court is deliberate or accidental. The standard is objective: a Senior Advocate of long standing is imputed with knowledge of the state of the law, and the defence of inadvertence is not available to him.
Third, where an overruling or a contrary precedent is brought to the advocate’s notice — whether by the court, by opposing counsel, or by any other person — the advocate’s duty to correct his submissions and withdraw the overruled authority becomes immediate and absolute. Persistence in relying upon an overruled judgment after its overruling has been pointed out to him is not a professional lapse. It is professional dishonesty.
These duties are not the creation of judicial sentiment. They are the foundation upon which the adversarial system rests — the premise that every court can rely upon the officers who appear before it to assist it honestly in identifying the law, and that no officer will exploit the court’s trust in him to keep it ignorant of authorities that would have changed the outcome.
SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL POSITION
The above judgments, taken together, establish the following propositions as beyond controversy:
(i) Every Advocate — including a Senior Advocate — is an officer of the Court and owes the Court a paramount duty of candour, honesty and full disclosure, which overrides his duty to his client.
(ii) Suppression of material facts, false statements before the Court, fabrication of documents and misleading the Court are not professional errors — they are criminal acts attracting prosecution for perjury and fabrication, contempt of court with punishment up to imprisonment, and Bar Council disciplinary action up to cancellation of certificate of practice.
(iii) Senior Advocate status does not confer immunity — it imposes a higher standard, and its breach is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.
(iv) The Court itself is duty-bound to take action upon discovering suppression or false statements — it cannot protect erring Advocates by inaction, and such inaction is itself a failure of judicial duty.
(v) Judges and Tribunal Members who condone or protect suppression and false statements by Advocates — rather than acting upon them — render themselves liable for failure of duty and, where such protection is deliberate and calculated, attract the legal consequences of abetment and judicial dishonesty as set out in Part XII of this complaint.
That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106, R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, High Court of Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407, Yatin Narendra Oza v. Suo Motu High Court of Gujarat, 2026 INSC 470, and Yatin Narendra Oza v. High Court of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1004, has repeatedly emphasised that members of the Bar are duty bound to preserve the dignity, authority, and majesty of Courts and that conduct tending to interfere with administration of justice or lower the authority of constitutional courts may warrant serious constitutional, disciplinary, and contempt consequences. The designation of senior counsels was also withdrawn for dishonest conduct .
The complaint places particular reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Muthukrishnan v. High Court of Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407. According to the complaint, the Supreme Court in unequivocal terms condemned advocates who resort to distorted pleadings, fabricated allegations, suppression of material facts, corruption, collusion, or conduct intended to mislead Courts. The judgment observed that advocates engaging in such conduct constitute “deadwood” within the legal profession and deserve to be removed in order to preserve the purity, integrity, and credibility of the justice delivery system.
The complaint contends that the principles laid down in R. Muthukrishnan impose a corresponding duty upon Courts and Tribunals to ensure that allegations of suppression, fraud, and abuse of process are not brushed aside, diluted, or ignored merely because they involve influential litigants, financial institutions, or Advocates.
The complaint further refers to recent decisions including New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr., 2026 INSC 498, and Roma Ahuja v. State & Anr., 2026 INSC 336, which, according to the complainant, reiterate the duty of advocates to maintain absolute candour before the Court and reinforce the principle that suppression, misleading pleadings, and abuse of judicial process invite serious legal and professional consequences.
In the case of Roma Ahuja Vs The State And Anr, 2026 INSC 336 it is ruled as under;
“8. As disclosure of honest and full facts before the Court is part of the fair conduct on the part of lawyers, respecting the binding precedence of the judgments and conceding its applicability in a case is also a duty in fairness to be discharged by the advocates in conducting their case. They are part of the system of administration of justice and are not expected to breach the rules of the game to argue against settled principles or contrary to well settled law, just for the sake of doing it. Giving up an argument where a point of law is already decided is a professional virtue. It is part of ethics in professional conduct before the Court.
8.1 As the courts are bound by the law of precedent and to follow the law laid down in the binding judgment of the Constitution Bench, the lawyers are also expected to respect the strong-operated precedent emanating from a judgment holding the field unless exceptional grounds exist to distinguish the decision are available. Merely for the purpose of demonstrating the argumentative skill, the Criminal Appeals @ SLP(Crl) No.9971-9972/2025 Page 27 of 29 lawyers ought not to eat up the valuable public time of the court by making the submissions, which are worthless against binding precedent.”
In New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr. 2026 INSC 498, Roma Ahuja Vs The State And Anr, 2026 INSC 336 it is ruled as under;
“14. When considering these issues, the roles both the Bar and the Bench must be addressed. Counsel appearing in Court to plead the case of a particular party making all effort possible, while balancing ethics and their duty towards the Court, to secure a victory for their clients. It is this duty towards the Court which requires them to bring to the Court’s notice judgments both that aid their case and also those that do not. It is here that the counsel’s awareness of law and grasp on facts are their greatest assets, enabling them to distinguish judgments that may seemingly be against them and still secure a favourable order. This duty is all the more important in the present day because all the Courts are polyvocal. Tens of orders and judgments are pronounced every day across a range of issues and so, the Court before which they are appearing may not be aware of the latest pronouncement. They must disclose the same to the Court ensuring consistency. …. So, in essence, both the Bar and the Bench are responsible for minimising the problems that arise in the face of inconsistent judicial opinion. They are both constituents of the justice delivery system, and all actions must be guided by a sense of service to the system, further facilitating reduction of pendency.”
Complaint Seeks Removal and Prosecution of NCLT Members
On the basis of the aforesaid legal principles, the complaint seeks disciplinary action, removal from office, and sanction for prosecution of the concerned NCLT Members. The complainant asserts that where prima facie material exists indicating deliberate disregard of binding precedents, failure to act against suppression and fraud despite record-based allegations, and judicial protection extended to persons accused of misleading the Tribunal, the matter ceases to be a mere judicial error and warrants institutional scrutiny at the highest level.
The complaint therefore calls for immediate examination of the conduct of the concerned Members and initiation of appropriate disciplinary and criminal proceedings in accordance with law, with the stated objective of preserving public confidence in the administration of justice and maintaining the integrity of the insolvency adjudicatory framework.
Alleged discounting of judicial conscience
The larger allegation of an unholy nexus between select advocates and sections of the NCLT Mumbai adjudicatory structure has led to a pattern corrosive to the institution of NCLT because it creates an impression that some advocates can obtain adjudicatory indulgence even when serious allegations of suppression and fraud are raised.
Selective use of contempt jurisdiction
The legal fraternity is concerned, since another public controversy involving Shri Prabhat Kumar, where contempt jurisdiction was allegedly deployed by him against bank officials who acted in accordance with RBI guidelines on prudent banking practices. this reflects a disturbing pattern within NCLT Mumbai: contempt jurisdiction is allegedly weaponised harshly against some parties, while diluted or deflected when allegations of suppression, perjury and fraud involve favoured litigants or select advocates.
Defiance of Articles 141 and 144 of the Constituion
The complaint further alleges defiance of Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution. Binding precedents on suppression, fraud on court, clean hands, advocate’s duty and interference with due course of justice were allegedly placed before the Bench of Sh. Saji Kumar & Sh. Anil Chellan. who merely catalogued those authorities and brushed them aside without applying their ratio to the admitted record.
Impact on IBC architecture
This concern assumes greater seriousness because IBC adjudication rests on transparency, commercial confidence and truthful disclosure. A resolution plan cannot become a vehicle for laundering or whitewashing fraud. If NCLT Benches fail to police candour at the threshold, the entire IBC architecture becomes vulnerable to manipulation by fraudsters and their chosen legal representatives.
Wider institutional concern
The overall concern of NCLT functioning have deepened in light of public reports concerning CBI action around NCLT Mumbai, including alleged bribery, arrest of a Deputy Registrar, attempts to influence tribunal proceedings, corporate advisory intermediaries and investigation into wider corruption networks. Against this backdrop, the complaint asserts that any order appearing to protect select advocates and litigants from fraud scrutiny must be examined with institutional urgency. The matter therefore travels beyond one contempt application, one advocate, one financial institution or one order. It raises a larger question about whether judicial conscience in NCLT Mumbai is on a steady decline, and binding law ignored when inconvenient to favoured actors.
The complaint calls for urgent institutional intervention, not merely to correct an order, but to preserve the fair name of the judiciary, restore confidence in NCLT Mumbai and protect the IBC regime from what it describes as an emerging ecosystem of selective advocacy, compromised adjudicatory indulgence and declining tribunal conscience.
