# In the matter of Team Interventure Exports (India) Private Limited

> NCLT judgment dated 2024-08-30. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLT-00710. The case involves an application filed by Pradeep Kumar Chakravarty, the Resolution…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 30 Aug 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLT-00710
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/team-interventure-exports-india-private-limited-a19ea50f

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed by Pradeep Kumar Chakravarty, the Resolution Professional (RP) of M/S Team Interventure Exports (India) Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, under Section 19(2) read with Sections 70 and 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated following an application by Bank of Baroda under Section 7 of the IBC, which was admitted on March 17, 2023. The RP was appointed to manage the CIRP. The application was filed due to the respondents' failure to provide necessary information and cooperation for conducting the CIRP. The RP alleges that the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 1, obstructed the process by not assisting and cooperating, impeding the management of

…

## Facts

The Bank of Baroda initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/S Team Interventure Exports (India) Private Limited by filing an application under Section 7 of the IBC 2016, which was admitted on 17.03.2023. Pradeep Kumar Chakravarty was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) and later continued as the Resolution Professional (RP). The RP filed an application (IA No. 3766 of 2023) because the respondents, Vinod Kumar Umadatta Agarwal (Respondent No. 1), Nand Kishore and Co. (Respondent No. 2), and IP Mehta and Company (Respondent No. 3), failed to provide necessary information and cooperation required for conducting the CIRP. The RP alleges that Respondent No. 1 obstructed the process by not assisting and cooperating, impeding the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether Respondent No. 1 should be directed to provide the documents and information sought by the …

**Ratio:** The promoter/suspended director of the Corporate Debtor is under a legal obligation to

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLT reasoned that Respondent No. 1, being the promoter/suspended director of the

…

**Interpretation:** This interpretation reinforces the legal obligation of the former management of

…

**Application:** The NCLT applied this ratio to the facts of the case by directing Respondent

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Kuldip Kumar…; ANIL RAJ C…
- **Appellants:** Pradeep Kumar…
- **Respondents:** M/S Team Intervent…; Vinod Kumar…

## Timeline

- **2016-01-01 — Enactment…**: The Insolvency and…
- **2018-03-01 — Corporate Debtor Ceases…**: Respondent No. 1 claims the Corporate…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 19(2) — Personnel to extend co-operation to interim…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-19)

---

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/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/team-interventure-exports-india-private-limited-a19ea50f