Court upholds consolidation of CIRP for efficiency & stakeholder value, overriding individual creditor interests.

The appeal was dismissed as the court upheld the consolidation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of three companies, including a subsidiary, based on common control, inter-dependence, and pooling of resources among the companies. The court emphasized the importance of consolidation for efficient resolution and stakeholder value, overriding individual creditor interests. The decision highlighted the synergies and inter-dependencies between the companies, justifying the consolidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code objective.

---

---

Issues:
Consolidation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of multiple companies under one Resolution Professional.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Impugned Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, consolidating the CIRP of three companies, including Lavasa Corporate Ltd. (LCL) and its subsidiaries, despite objections from the Operational Creditor of one subsidiary, Dasve Convention Centre Ltd. (DCCL).

2. The Appellant, claiming to be an Operational Creditor of DCCL, argued that the consolidation decision was against the majority decision of DCCL's CoC, which solely consisted of Operational Creditors.

3. The Adjudicating Authority relied on the yardsticks specified in previous judgments and directed the consolidation based on common control, common directors, assets and liabilities, inter-dependence, and pooling of resources among the companies involved.

4. The Appellant contended that DCCL's distinct creditors, lack of common liabilities, and absence of financial creditors should have precluded its consolidation with the other companies based on the yardsticks applied in a previous judgment.

5. The Respondent's Counsel argued that consolidation was in the best interest of the companies as DCCL was a subsidiary of LCL, and their businesses were inter-linked, as highlighted in the CoC's willingness to support consolidation for full claim recovery.

6. The Adjudicating Authority found substantial inter-dependence and synergies between the companies, especially noting DCCL's reliance on LCL for its operations, justifying the consolidation based on the yardsticks applied in the previous judgment.

7. The Adjudicating Authority emphasized that without consolidation, the resolution of the companies, including DCCL, would not be possible, potentially leading to a loss of significant value for stakeholders and defeating the objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

8. Ultimately, the Appeal was dismissed as the Court found no error in the consolidation decision, emphasizing the resolution objective over individual creditor interests, especially considering the inter-linkages and dependencies between the companies involved.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the issues, arguments, and reasoning presented in the judgment regarding the consolidation of the CIRP of multiple companies under one Resolution Professional.

---