IBBI Appellate Authority Raps Valuer Over 'Nil' Valuation of Assets Worth ₹960 Crore In Uniply CIRP
The Appellate Authority set aside a lenient penalty imposed on the valuer and remanded the matter for fresh consideration
The Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has set aside a lenient three-month suspension imposed on a registered valuer for assigning nil value to financial assets worth over Rs 960 crore, including cash, during the insolvency process of Uniply Industries Limited.
In an order dated January 7, 2026, IBBI Chairperson Ravi Mital said the penalty was far too mild and sent the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee for fresh consideration. The valuer, R. Vaidyanathan, has also been barred from taking any new assignments until the show cause notice is finally decided.
The authority said the valuation raised serious concerns. Assets with a book value of Rs 960.45 crore were marked as “zero” or “not determinable”. This included trade receivables of about Rs 272 crore, investments of nearly Rs 173 crore, other financial assets worth over Rs 400 crore, and even cash and cash equivalents of Rs 1.06 crore.
The Chairperson said assigning a “not determinable” value to cash should have triggered greater care and independent checks. It did not.
The valuer argued that key information was not made available to him. He said there had been no recovery from the receivables since 2019–20 and no movement during the insolvency process. He claimed assigning a zero value was a bona fide exercise of professional judgment.
The Appellate Authority rejected this defence. It said a valuer cannot walk away from responsibility by citing lack of information, especially in an insolvency process where diligence matters most.
“Any lapse, negligence, casual approach, or arbitrary assignment of values not only erodes the economic worth of the corporate debtor but also derails the resolution process and undermines the credibility of the IBC framework itself,” the Chairperson said.
The authority also noted that the valuer had claimed to follow International Valuation Standards but failed to meet their basic requirements. The valuation was described as casual and unexpected from a registered professional.
Calling the three-month suspension a “nominal punishment,” the Appellate Authority said it failed to act as a deterrent. The penalty was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication.
Until then, the valuer will not be allowed to take up new assignments.