Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Source Commercial Private Limited & Anr vs The Registrar Of Companies Nct Of Delhi & ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal7 January 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veracity of the disclosures made to the Tribunal, and where no-objection certificates were obtained on a scheme since superseded and so cannot be relied upon for the revised application.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

1NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHIComp. App. (AT) No. 04 of 2026IN THE MATTER OF:

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