# In the matter of  Krishna Kumar Mintri Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Singhania & Anr. CA(AT)(Insolvency) 456-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-02-27. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00757. The Punjab National Bank (PNB), as a financial creditor, initiated Corporate Insolvency…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 27 Feb 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00757
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/krishna-kumar-mintri-vs-kamlesh-kumar-singhania-anr-ca-744de0ad

## Summary

### Background

The Punjab National Bank (PNB), as a financial creditor, initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Mintri Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The application was admitted, and PNB was the sole member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Krishna Kumar Mintri, a shareholder of Mintri Tea Company, negotiated with PNB and other claimants to settle the claims. Subsequently, PNB applied for withdrawal of the CIRP under Section 12A of the IBC, as the total amount had been paid in full. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) rejected the withdrawal application, stating that Section 12A was not applicable since the Section 7 application was filed earlier. The

…

## Facts

Punjab National Bank (PNB) initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Mintri Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The application was admitted, and PNB was the sole member of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Krishna Kumar Mintri, a shareholder of Mintri Tea Company, negotiated with PNB and other claimants to settle the claims. Subsequently, PNB applied for withdrawal of the CIRP under Section 12A of the IBC, as the total amount had been paid in full. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) rejected the withdrawal application, stating that Section 12A was not applicable since the Section 7 application was filed earlier. The Adjudicating Authority also directed

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in rejecting the application for withdrawal of the …

**Ratio:** The ratio is that Regulation 30A cannot override the substantive provision of Section 12A

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the Supreme Court's

…

**Interpretation:** Section 12A provides a mechanism for withdrawal of CIRP applications based on

…

**Application:** In this case, the parties had settled, and the Committee of Creditors approved

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Krishna Kumar…
- **Respondents:** Mintri Tea…; Kamlesh Kumar…

## Timeline

- **2018-08-03 — Impugned Order by…**: The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) rejected the…
- **2018-11-19 — Impugned Order by…**: The Adjudicating Authority directed the Punjab National Bank to pay the fee and cost of…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/krishna-kumar-mintri-vs-kamlesh-kumar-singhania-anr-ca-744de0ad