Sanjay Kumar Singh vs Srijan Realty Private Limited & Ors

IN THE MATTER OF: Sanjay Kumar Singh, Suspended Director of Eskay Properties Development Private Limited ...Appellant Versus Srijan Realty Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Palash S. Singhai, Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Mr. Harshal Sareen and Ms. Aashima Gautam, Advocates.

For Respondents : Ms. Shreya Choudhary, Advocate for IRP.

Mr. Supriyo Gole, Mr. Arijit Mazumdar, Ms. Anoushka Dey and Ms. Madhuja Barmar, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

14.08.2026 :

I.A. No. 4686 of 2026 In Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 257 of 2026

1. This is an application moved by the suspended director of the

Corporate Debtor seeking the following reliefs in the present appeal:

"(a) allow the present Application;

(b) Pass appropriate directions quashing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor;

(c) set aside the Impugned Order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in C.P. (IB) No. 85/KB/2023;

(d) any such other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice;"

2. The Corporate Debtor, Respondent No.1 and Khaitan Lefin Limited

entered into Development Agreement dated 13.06.2015, wherein it was

agreed the Respondent No. 1 would develop/construct two new buildings

i.e., the Saleable Building and Mahabodhi Society's Building on a property

bearing no. 7 & 7/1, Keytala Lane, Kolkata - 700019, owned by the

Corporate Debtor. The Development Agreement provided upon the

development of Saleable Building and the saleable areas in the Saleable

Building and all other spaces would be shared between the parties in the

manner provided in the Development Agreement.

3. Clause 9.1 of the Development Agreement provided the Respondent

No.1 was to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- as adjustable and refundable

deposit with the corporate debtor. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 deposited

a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- as adjustable and refundable deposit with

corporate debtor.

4. The Respondent No.1 by its letter dated 23.12.2017, terminated the

Development Agreement and requested the Corporate Debtor to refund the

aforesaid sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- along with interest.

5. Between 31.05.2019 and 21.06.2022, Corporate Debtor made

payment of Rs.4,42,00,000/- to the Respondent No.1. On 31.03.2023,

Respondent No. 1 filed Company Petition (IB) No.85/2023 before Ld.

Adjudicating Authority, Kolkata under Section 7 of Insolvency and Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 257 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4686 of 2026 2 of 7 Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency

Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor claiming financial debt of

Rs.8,55,87,895. (Rs.5,00,00,000/- towards Security Deposit and Rs.

3,55,87,895/- towards interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum).

6. During the pendency of Section 7 Petition before the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority, Corporate Debtor remitted an additional sum of Rs.98,00,000/-

towards security deposit to the Respondent No.1. Thus, Corporate Debtor

made total payment of Rs.5,40,00,000/- to Respondent No.1. The Ld.

Adjudicating Authority vide impugned order initiated the CIRP against

Corporate Debtor and appointed Mr. Manish Jain as an Interim Resolution

Professional of the Corporate Debtor.

7. On 06.02.2026, the captioned appeal was listed for hearing before this

Tribunal, where parties submitted they were taking steps to resolve the

issues. This Tribunal by its order dated 06.02.2026 directed no further

steps be taken in pursuance of the impugned order and listed the appeal for

hearing on 10.03.2026.

8. However, the applicant/appellant and Respondent No.1 entered into

Settlement Agreement on 23.02.2026, wherein it was agreed the applicant

would pay total sum of Rs.10,51,16,338/- to Respondent No. 1 for full and

final settlement between Corporate Debtor and Respondent No.1 in

accordance with the payment terms provided in Clause 3 of the Settlement

Agreement. Further, Clause 4 of the Settlement Agreement provides upon

the fulfilment of payment obligations as set forth in Clause 3 of the

Settlement Agreement and on occurrence of settlement completion date, the Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 257 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4686 of 2026 3 of 7 Respondent No. 1 would withdraw the said Company Petition. The copy of

Settlement Agreement executed between the applicant/appellant and

Respondent No. 1 is annexed as Annexure A-1 to the application.

9. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the applicant had made a

payment of Rs.9,00,00,000/- to Respondent No. 1, which had been accepted

by the Respondent No.1. For completeness the payment is made by M/s.

Khaitan Hotels Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of applicant. Details of payment of

Rs.9,00,00,000/- made by the applicant/appellant to respondent is as

follows:-

Sr. No. Date of Mode of payment / UTR Amount (INR) payment No.

1. 24.02.2026 Through Cheque 2,50,00,047.20 UTR No. :

SBINR52026022417794839

2. 25.02.2026 Through Cheque 2,50,00,047.20 UTR No. :

SBINR5202602251794140

3. 30.03.2026 Through Cheque 2,00,00,047.20 UTR No.:

SBINR52026033022184053

4. 24.04.2026 Through Cheque 2,00,00,047.20 UTR No.:

SBINR52026042425440994 Total 9,00,00,000/-

Copy of Statement showing transfer of Rs.9,00,00,000/- to

Respondent No. 1 is annexed as Annexure A-2 to the application.

10. Upon the payment of Rs.9,00,00,000/- by the appellant to the

Respondent No. 1, the appellant and respondent No. 1 had a discussion

regarding the settlement, wherein it was agreed between the parties the

payment of Rs.9,00,00,000/- is considered as full and final settlement

between the parties in place of Rs.10,51,16,338/- as agreed in the Clause 2 Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 257 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4686 of 2026 4 of 7 of the Settlement Agreement. The parties effectively amended the Clause 2

& 3 of the Settlement Agreement by reducing the Settlement Amount from

Rs.10,51,16,338/- to Rs.9,00,00,000/- and it was agreed the last date of

payment i.e., 24.04.2026 would be the settlement completion date for the

purpose of the Settlement Agreement.

11. In terms of the agreement between the parties after the execution of

the Settlement Agreement, the applicant has paid the entire Settlement

Amount to the Respondent No. 1 and hence the settlement completion date

has occurred. Therefore, Clause 4 (a) to (d) of the Settlement Agreement has

triggered, which discharge the Corporate Debtor from any and all claims in

relation to the impugned order and the Company Petition and also the claim

of Respondent No.1 against the Corporate Debtor ceased to exist, thus

requests for setting aside of CIRP.

12. The Corporate Debtor has total 5 creditors, which as confirmed from

the audited balance sheet of Corporate Debtor for the year ended on

31.03.2025. It is stated that 4 out of 5 creditors have already given no

objection for withdrawal of the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor. Copy of

affidavits of 4 creditors of corporate debtor giving no objection for

withdrawal of the CIRP of corporate debtor are annexed as Annexure A-3

(Colly) to the application.

13. Heard.

14. The IRP has also filed his notes of submission wherein it is stated that

after making the public announcement on 06.02.2026, he has received only

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 257 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4686 of 2026 5 of 7 one claim from Respondent No. 1 itself and as the settlement has taken

place between the parties the IRP has no objection in case CIRP is closed as

even the amount of fee and expenses incurred by the IRP has since been

received by the IRP.

15. Thus, as the appellant has paid the entire settlement amount to

Respondent No. 1 and all the claims of Respondent No. 1 against the

Corporate Debtor are extinguished and all the creditors of the Corporate

Debtor have given no objection for closure of the CIRP, therefore, the CIRP

against the Corporate Debtor is prayed to be set aside.

16. This Tribunal in the matter of 'Gaurav Bhatia (Suspended Director

of Bird Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd.)' Vs. 'Smriti Bhatia & Ors.',

[Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 881 - 882 of 2025] had closed the

CIRP of Corporate Debtor in view of Settlement Agreement executed between

the parties. Paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment are as follows:

"7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances coupled with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sachin Malde (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any claim made by the creditors other than the one who have filed the application under Section 7, despite the fact that due publication was made by the IRP, this court can exercise jurisdiction for settling the dispute between the parties, before this court, in spite of asking the financial creditor to file an application under Section 12A of the Code in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Glass Trust Company LLC (Supra).

8. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby disposed of by setting aside the impugned order".

17. Thus, considering the settlement arrived at between the appellant and

respondents and the IRP did not receive any claim after public Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 257 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4686 of 2026 6 of 7 announcement dated 06.02.2026 and also that settlement between the

parties is arrived at prior to 26.05.2026 the date Section 12A of the IBC

amendment is made effective; we are inclined to close the CIRP, hence the

application along with the appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications

are also disposed of.

[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Officiating Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 257 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4686 of 2026 7 of 7