Disposed¶17

Anil Goel v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Delhi HC15 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/6899/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court order (15.01.2026), W.P.(C) 6899/2021, Anil Goel v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India; duty of quasi-judicial authority to assign reasons for decisions adversely affecting rights; disclosure of reasons and documents for closure of complaint; IBBI acting under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations, 2017; authority under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; relies on Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, 1967 SCR (3) 302; petitioner enabled to pursue remedy; petition disposed of with direction to supply copy of reasons for closure.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to supply a copy of the reasons for closure of the petitioner's complaint. ¶17

Anil Goel Vs Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6899/2021

¶4

ANIL GOEL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv. versus

¶6

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 15.01.2026

¶11

The prayers in the petition is for disclosure of the reasons and documents forming the basis for the closure of the petitioner’s complaint by the respondent, along with the procedure adopted for the same.

¶12

There is no reason to undertake a detailed exercise and to scrutinise the facts at this stage. The respondent is an authority established under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

¶13

If a complaint is made by the petitioner to the said authority, it is incumbent upon respondent no.1 to take it to its logical conclusion. The respondent, in exercise of its powers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Grievance and Complaint Handling Procedure) Regulations, 2017, acts as a quasi-judicial authority. It is settled law that quasi-judicial authorities are bound to assign reasons for their decisions which adversely affect the rights of any party. Reference can be made to, inter alia, the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 12:54:12

¶16

decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Raja v. Union of India¹ . If reasons are not assigned or supplied to the petitioner, he may not be able to take remedy, which he may have against the decision.

¶17

Under these circumstances, the petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondent to supply a copy of the reasons for closure of the petitioner’s complaint.

¶18

Petition stands disposed of.

¶19

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶20

JANUARY 15, 2026/p/amg

¶21

1 1967 SCR (3) 302

¶22

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 12:54:12

Anil Goel v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Goel v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Nord Anglia Education Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int. Tax 2(2) (2), New Delhi

Ruchika Tanwar Vs the Registrar, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Anr.

M/S Kanti Prashad Mittal Vs Union of India through Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways through Govt. of Assam, PWD

Anmol Enterprises Vs Superintendent, Range -90, Division Palam, Cgst Delhi South Commissionerate and Ors.

India Power Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar

Kajal and Anrs. Vs the Controller (Cd) DM S/W District and Anr.

Praveen Singh Bhadoria Vs Irrigation and Flood Control Department & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Sharma and Another Vs Union of India and Othrers

Rita Pillai Vs Payal Dewangana

Vikas Jaiswal Vs Central Information Commission

Protium Finance Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.