Consortium lending does not bar a single financial creditor from filing Section 7; admission turns on default and completeness.

A financial creditor in a consortium may file a Section 7 application individually, because the IBC and the CIRP Rules permit filing either by a single financial creditor or jointly. At the admission stage, the key requirements are proof of default, a complete application, and confirmation that the proposed interim resolution professional is not facing disciplinary proceedings. On the stated record, repeated non-payment, account classification as NPA, recall of facilities, and supporting account records established default, while objections based on restructuring, SICA, and SARFAESI proceedings were treated as irrelevant to admission because of Section 238's overriding effect. The insolvency application was admitted and CIRP was commenced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a financial creditor forming part of a consortium could maintain an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on its own; (ii) Whether default was established and the application satisfied the statutory requirements for admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether a financial creditor forming part of a consortium could maintain an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on its own.

Analysis: The explanation to Section 7(1) recognises that an application may be filed by a financial creditor either individually or jointly. Rule 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 also permits filing by a financial creditor by itself or jointly with other financial creditors. The consortium arrangement did not bar the applicant from invoking the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability on the ground of consortium lending failed.

Issue (ii): Whether default was established and the application satisfied the statutory requirements for admission under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The record showed repeated disbursements, restructuring, recall of facilities, classification of the account as NPA, invocation of guarantees, CRILC and account records evidencing non-payment, and a complete application with a duly proposed insolvency professional who had filed the required disclosure and was not under disciplinary proceedings. Objections based on possible restructuring, SICA, and SARFAESI proceedings were held irrelevant to admission in view of the overriding effect of Section 238 and the statutory focus at the admission stage on default, completeness, and absence of pending disciplinary proceedings against the proposed interim resolution professional.

Conclusion: Default was proved and the application was fit for admission.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency application was admitted, moratorium was declared, and an interim resolution professional was appointed for commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process.

Ratio Decidendi: A financial creditor may invoke Section 7 individually even in consortium lending, and at the admission stage the Adjudicating Authority must be satisfied only about default, completeness of the application, and absence of disciplinary proceedings against the proposed interim resolution professional.

---