Principle of merger bars separate challenges to interlocutory orders once the main company petition is finally decided.

Interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a company petition cannot be independently challenged after the petition has been finally dismissed, where the final judgment is already under appeal. The NCLAT applied the principle of merger, holding that interim applications and their orders lose separate existence once the main proceeding is finally adjudicated, especially where they are of lesser significance than the final decision. On that basis, separate appeals against the interim orders were held not maintainable, and no useful purpose would be served by examining them on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of the company petition could be independently challenged after the petition itself had been finally dismissed, when an appeal against the final judgment was already pending.

Analysis: The appeals concerned orders on interlocutory applications seeking interim arrangements during the pendency of the company petition. Once the company petition was finally decided and dismissed, those interim applications lost their independent existence and stood merged in the final judgment. The principle of merger was applied to hold that interlocutory orders of lesser significance cannot survive separately after final adjudication of the main proceeding. Since the final judgment on the company petition was already under challenge, separate appeals against the interim orders were not maintainable and no useful purpose would be served by examining them on merits.

Conclusion: The interlocutory orders could not be separately challenged and the appeals were not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a proceeding merge with the final adjudication of the main matter and cannot thereafter be independently assailed once the principal proceeding has been finally decided.

---