Radha Buildtech (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Solitaire Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 675 & 676 of 2026 & I.A. No. 2647, 2648 of 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: Radha Buildtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)

Versus Solitaire Infomedia Pvt. Ltd. Through Jalesh Kumar ...Respondent(s) Grover Resolution Professional & Ors. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Pooja Saigal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kabir Chhilwar, Mr. Nivesh Dixit, Advocates

For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate

Mr. Palash Singhai, Mr. Harshal Sareen, Ms. Aashima Gautam, Advocates for R3

Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate for R4

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

06.05.2026 Heard Ld. Counsel for Appellant and Ld. Counsel

appearing for Respondents.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 12/02/2026

passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Court V, New Delhi in I.A. No

3373/2025.

3. I.A. was filed seeking a direction for consolidation of Corporate

Insolvency Resolution Process of M/s Solitaire Infomedia Pvt. Ltd, Corporate

Debtor, with Premia Project Limited into single proceedings. Both the CDs

have filed the Application for Consolidation.

4. Appellant, before us is a Resolution Application of Premia Project

Limited, who is challenging the order directing for consolidation of the CIRP.

5. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for Appellant that creditors are the

same and the Resolution Plan had already been submitted by Appellant

which was approved by Committee of Creditors of M/s Premia Project

Limited.

6. Shri Abhishek Anand, Ld. Counsel for Respondent submitted that in

view of the Consolidation of CIRP, the issuance of Form G is consequential

action and joint CIRP of both the CDs have to commence, which was

directed by the Adjudicating Authority.

7. We have heard the Counsels for the Parties and perused the records.

8. When both the CDs themselves have prayed for the consolidation of

the CIRP, we do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority

directing for such Consolidation for initiation of joint CIRP of both the

Corporate Debtors.

9. In so far as the submission of the Appellant that creditors are same

and Plan has been approved by the CoC, we are of the view that the process

has to restart and in the joint CIRP, the steps, as per the IBC and the

Regulations have to be taken afresh.

10. We further clarify that it shall always be open for the Appellant to

submit Resolution Plan when appropriate time comes, if eligible, for

consideration.

11. Ld. Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Appellant is not against

the consolidation but the consolidation is sought otherwise. We are of the

view that the said submission cannot be accepted when consolidation has

been made, both has to be treated to be consolidated into one CIRP Process.

2 of 3

12. With the above observations, Appeal dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md

3 of 3