Arun Verma had built a name for himself as one of the most reputable Insolvency Professional in the city. With years of experience in handling bankruptcy and insolvency cases, he was the go-to expert for several high-pro

Arun Verma had built a name for himself as one of the most reputable Insolvency Professional in the city. With years of experience in handling bankruptcy and insolvency cases, he was the go-to expert for several high-profile businesses in financial distress. His reputation for efficiently managing complex insolvency cases was unmatched. But behind his professional facade, a series of ethical missteps were quietly beginning to surface. It all started with a case that came across his desk a few months ago—The Patel Group of Industries, a well-known manufacturing company, was facing severe financial troubles and had entered into insolvency proceedings. Arun was appointed as the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The pressure to resolve the case efficiently and to maintain his high standing in the industry weighed heavily on him. What the stakeholders, including the creditors and shareholders, did not know, however, was that Arun was not as transparent as he should have been. He had been accepting additional fees from the debtor company, outside of the formal arrangement, which was against the professional conduct expected of someone in his position. Arun had a habit of not disclosing these additional payments to the NCLT or other involved parties. But that wasn't all. As the case progressed, Arun found himself entangled in a web of favors that went beyond monetary transactions. During meetings with senior executives of Patel Group, he began accepting expensive gifts, ranging from luxury watches to designer handbags, as a form of gratitude for his services. To make matters worse, at the same time, he accepted lavish hospitality, including stays at five-star hotels and exclusive dinners, all paid for by the very company whose insolvency he was supposed to manage impartially. At first, Arun believed these small indulgences were harmless. "After all," he thought, "it's just a token of appreciation. Everyone does it." But soon, these "tokens" began to blur the line between ethical practice and corruption. Arun had become too comfortable with the perks and began to overlook the conflict of interest they created. He was no longer just the impartial professional managing an insolvency case; he had become a part of the very company he was meant to oversee. The tipping point came when one of the creditors raised a red flag. They had noticed some irregularities in the fees Arun had been receiving, particularly a lack of transparency in the invoices submitted by Arun. A detailed investigation by the creditor revealed that Arun had indeed been taking payments beyond what was disclosed to the NCLT and had been accepting personal gifts and excessive hospitality from the Patel Group, which could create a bias in his professional decisions. The creditor filed a formal complaint with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), which led to a thorough investigation into Arun's practices. Who was once a respected professional was now under scrutiny for violating the principles of transparency, integrity, and fairness. In the light of above information, answer the following questions stating the relevant provisions of the IBC, 2016. What were the consequences of Arun Verma's unethical behaviour in the insolvency case ?