Disposed

In the matter of M. K. Infrastructure Private Limited IA(I.B.C)-1041(KB)2021 in C.P. (IB)-831(KB)2018

NCLT14 Dec 2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NCLT Kolkata Bench closed the CIRP initiated against M.K. Infrastructure Private Limited after verifying that the settlement sum and resolution costs were paid. The court restored the Board of Directors and directed the IRP to handover assets.

What did the court decide?

CIRP closed; Board of Directors restored; IRP to handover assets and documents; IRP relieved of duties.

In the matter of M. K. Infrastructure Private Limited… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | NCLT (2021)

¶1

DIVISION BENCH COURT - I

¶2

O-114

¶3

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH KOLKATA

¶4

C.P. (IB)/831(KB)2018 IA(I.B.C)/1041(KB)2021

¶5

Present: 1. Hon'ble Member(J), Shri Rajasekhar V.K. 2. Hon'ble Member(T), Shri Balraj Joshi

¶6

ATTENDANCE-CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING ON 14^th December, 2021, 10:30 A.M

¶7

S.T.P LIMITED Vs.

¶8

Name	of the Company	M.K. INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIM	ITED
Under	Section	IBC Under Sec 9
Sl. No.	Name & Designation of Au Representative (IN CAPIT	thorized AL LETTERS) Appearing on behalf of	Signature with date

¶9

Appearances (via video conference) for the RP

¶10

Mr.Anand Prakash,Adv Mr. Yogesh Mittal (Mr. Jugraj Singh Bedi) for Corporate Debtor

¶11

Mr. Arunabha Som

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Ld. Counsels for the parties present.

¶14

IA(I.B.C)/1041(KB)2021 -This is an application filed under section 12A read with regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulation for closing the CIRP initiated against the corporate debtor.

¶15

The brief facts that the present application vide order dated 24.01.2020 in C.P. (IB)/831(KB) 2018 CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor on an application filed by S.T.P Limited. An IRP was appointed, who made public announcement to the commencement of the CIRP was made in two newspapers on 07.02.2020, Financial Express in English and Aajkal in Bengali. In response to the public advertisement no claims were received by the IRP from any corporate except the petitioning operational Creditor. The CoC was duly constituted on that basis.

¶16

¶17

Thereafter the members of the suspended Board of the Corporate Debtor and the petitioning Operational Creditor entered into a settlement agreement dated 22.02.2020, which has been placed at page 23 of the application.

¶18

Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioning corporate Debtor submits that all the sums due in terms of the settlement agreement dated 22.02.2020 have been received. The IRP is present in person and he confirms that sum of ₹2.89 lakh towards CIRP costs have been received in full and the receipt in this regard is placed at page 38 of the application.

¶19

There is no objection from any quarter against the closure of the CIRP.

¶20

In this circumstances, it is hereby ordered as follows:

¶21

a. CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor vide order dated 24/01/2020 is hereby closed;

¶22

b. The Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor is restored to its original position;

¶23

c. The IRP is hereby directed to handover the assets of the Corporate Debtor along with any documents that he may have taken possession of during the CIRP, back to the restored Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor under due acknowledgement .

¶24

d. IRP shall be relieved of his duties under the Code and Regulations framed therein.

¶25

With these directions IA(I.B.C)/1041(KB)2021 is disposed of. Consequently C.P. (IB)/831(KB)2018 shall also stand closed.

¶26

File be consigned to the record .

¶27

(Balraj Joshi) Member (Technical)

¶28

(Rajasekhar V.K.) Member (Judicial)

¶29

In the matter of M. K. Infrastructure Private Limited IA(I.B.C)-1041(KB)2021 in C.P. (IB)-831(KB)2018

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

In the matter of M. K. Infrastructure Private Limited IA(I.B.C)-1041(KB)2021 in C.P. (IB)-831(KB)2018

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases