TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench). Whereby rejected the application (I.A No. 212 of 2020 in C.P. (IB) No. 165/BB/2018) filed by the Appellant, for consolidation of two Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). 2. Brief and relevant facts for this Appeal are that the 'Operational Creditor' (Appellant) has filed an application C.P. (IB) No. 165/BB/2018 under Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'I&B Code') for seeking to initiate CIRP in respect of BT & FC Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 1) on the ground that it has committed default for an amount of Rs. 05,72,49,000/-. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has admitted the application vide order dated 27.09.2019 and initiated CIRP appointing Mr. Pankaj Srivastava as IRP, imposing moratorium. The Committee of Creditors (CoC) of Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 1) consist of State Bank of India Financial Creditor (Respondent No. 3) and Ugro Capital Ltd. Financial Creditor (Respondent No. 4). The Financial Creditors have filed their claims before Resolution Professional (RP) (Respondent No. 6) in respect of the financial debts owned by the Corporate Debtor (Respondent No. 1). 3. The Ugro Capital Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion and Drying Equipment Company and its RP Ms. R. Bhuvaneshwari have opposed the application and stated that merely having few common shareholders in Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be ground for consolidation of CIRP of both the Companies into a single entity. There is no provision under the I&B Code to justify such consolidation. 7. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their common Reply have opposed the prayer and stated that the CoC have already resolved to liquidate the Respondent No. 1 company and same has been endorsed and submitted by the Resolution Professional on 03.03.2020 before the Adjudicating Authority. Thus, the present application has become infructuous. Therefore, there is no ground made out for consolidating the CIRP of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the parties, Ld. Adjudicating Authority held that the Appellant (Applicant) being an Operational Creditor has no locus standi to file the application, the Appellant (Applicant) has suppressed the facts of earlier filing of I.A No. 59 of 2019 seeking to club the other CP(IB) No. 135/BB/2018 by inter alia contending that both companies are controlled and managed by the family of Mr. M.V. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness relationship whatsoever with Respondent No. 2 and has no direct nexus with the Respondent No. 2. 14. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the Respondent No. 2 possesses an immovable property (Mortgaged with Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 having a pari passu charge). Therefore, Appellant malafidely seeking consolidation of CIRP of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 15. It is also submitted that in the Judgments relied on by the Appellant, the consolidation of CIRP was ordered for the sole reason that the Corporate Debtors constituted to be group Companies whereas, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are two separate and distinct legal entities and apart from the common directors there is no commonality in terms of shareholding, nature of business, Operational Creditors, investments and borrowing/landing. There is no cross shareholding or inter-se landing/borrowing between the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 company, which is one the essential ingredients for the said Respondent Companies to be deemed as group companies. Thus, Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly rejected the application for consolidation of CIRP. 16. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 7 supports the impugned orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ities: (a) The Respondent No. 3 has made a claim of Rs. 13,45,11,636/- against the Respondent No. 1 Company as a borrower and the Respondent No. 2 Company has a guarantor as a collateral for the loan obtained by the Respondent No. 1 Company and the Respondent No. 2 Company has mortgaged Peenya land and warehouse situated therein. Further Respondent No. 2 has provided a corporate guarantee as security for the loan obtained by the Respondent No. 1 Company. (b) In so far as the loan obtained by the Respondent No. 1 Company from the Respondent No. 4 is concerned, the Respondent No. 2 as security had created paripasu charge over the Peenya land, placed 67% of its shares and provided a corporate guarantee. Therefore, the liabilities of the Companies are also common and Companies had made themselves jointly and severally liable for the loans. Respondent No. 1 and 2 have common creditors i.e. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Directors of both the Companies have given personal guarantees for the loans. (v). Inter-dependence: The Respondent No. 1 Company was running a Distillery Unit in the Peenya land and warehouse building belonging to the Respondent No. 2 Company as stated by Respondent No.....