TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ukla, Mr. Umesh Ved for the Respondent ORDER PER SE: MS. MANORAMA KUMARI, MEMBER 1. The instant application is filed by the Liquidator under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "IB Code") read Rule 11 of the NCLT rules, 2016 with the following prayers: i. Order and direct the substantive consolidation of the Corporate Debtor and the Respondents Nos. 2-6 into a single proceedings solely for the purpose of CIRP in accordance with the provisions of the Code, including but not limited to the acceptance, confirmation and all other actions with respect to the resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor and the Respondent Nos. 2-6 and any and all amendments or modifications theret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "CIRP") against the Corporate Debtor i.e. Sona Alloys. However, during, the pendency of this application another Petition i.e. CP(IB) No. 586 of 2019 was filed against the Corporate Debtor by Noble Resources, under section 9 of the IB Code, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred as "CIRP") against the Corporate Debtor which was admitted on 16.06.2020 by this Adjudicating Authority. Mr. Jagdishchandra B. Mistri was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred as "IRP"). 2.2 With regard to Respondent No.2 (Ganga Advisory Pvt. Ltd.), Pani Logistics being Financial Creditor filed an application under section 7 of the 1B Code, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditor of Respondent No. 1. Further on filing of his claim, the IRP has verified the same and upon verification, it is found that the Applicant has failed to submit the proof of claims as required by Regulation 12 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 and in view of want of proper proof, the claim of the Applicant was rejected. Therefore, as on today, admittedly the Applicant is neither the Financial Creditor nor Operational Creditor or fall under the category of any stakeholder in respect to Respondent No. 1. The Applicant is as good as a stranger to the CIRP of Respondent and has no locus standi to file the instant application. 4. It is further submitted by the learned lawyer of the Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are not group companies, hence, the question of any consolidation of the properties does not arise at all. 9. Though, the Respondent No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 hold substantial share in the Corporate Debtor but mere shareholding does not mean that these are group companies. Had it been group company, there would have been a single order for initiation of CIRP. Since, the companies are holding separate entities and there is separate cause of action and date of default on the part of the Corporate Debtor, the CIRP proceeding has been initiated separately. Moreover, the 1B Code does not provide for any consolidation of the Company when the Companies are holding substantial shares in each other. It is seen that the Applicant....