Source Commercial Private Limited & Anr vs The Registrar Of Companies Nct Of Delhi & ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) No. 04 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The NCLT's dismissal of a first-motion merger application may stand where the application discloses inconsistencies in the number of creditors of the transferor and transferee companies, since such inconsistencies go to the root of the matter and bear on the veracity of the disclosures made to the Tribunal, and where no-objection certificates were obtained on a scheme since superseded and so cannot be relied upon for the revised application. A penal costs order imposed on an applicant whose first-motion application is dismissed for such defects may be set aside where the applicant undertakes to file a fresh, corrected application in accordance with law, and the appellate forum finds the dismissal otherwise sustainable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Source Commercial Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delh & Haryana & ...Respondent(s) Anr.
Present:
For Appellant(s) : Adv. Manoj Kumar Garg, Adv. Rajesh Agarwal, Adv. Shivam Garg, Advocates.
For Respondent(s) : Appearance not marked.
ORDER
(HYBRID MODE)
07.01.2026: This appeal is against an impugned order dated 04.11.2025
passed by Ld. NCLT, New Delhi whereby the Learned NCLT had dismissed the
company merger application during first motion while imposing a cost of
Rs. 1 Lakh to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
2. The Appellant No.1 company is a Transferor Company and Appellant
No.2 is a Transferee Company and both have sought merger and amalgamation
under sections 230-232 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act,
2013. However, during the first motion the Learned NCLT vide its impugned
order had observed the Appellant company has not exercised due diligence in 2
filing the merger application as First Motion. It was further held there are
inconsistencies in the number of unsecured creditors of Appellant No.1
company and in the number of secured and unsecured creditors of Appellant
No.2 companies which goes to the roots of the matter and affect the veracity of
the disclosures made before the Learned NCLT. Though, the Learned Counsel
for the Appellant submits they have corrected their mistakes but admittedly
NOC(s) from shareholders and other stakeholders were obtained earlier on a
scheme presented then hence we do not find any fault in the impugned order
and it would be appropriate if the fresh application is filed in accordance with
law.
3. In case such fresh application is filed, we request the Learned NCLT to
dispose of such application within three weeks from the date of listing of such
application (First Motion). In the circumstances so explained, the cost of
Rs. 1 Lakhs, as was imposed in the impugned order, is waived.
4. Appeal is disposed of in terms of above.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Mr. Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)
MT/RR
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free