Insolvency petition in the name of a non-existent amalgamated company is not maintainable.

A Section 9 insolvency application filed in the name of a company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation was not maintainable. Once the approved scheme of arrangement under Section 232(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 vested the transferor company's assets, liabilities, rights and obligations in the resultant company, the transferor lost independent juristic existence. A proceeding instituted in the name of a non-existent entity could not be sustained, and later proceedings did not cure the defect in the name of the applicant. The dismissal of the insolvency application was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Section 9 insolvency application filed in the name of a company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation was maintainable.

Analysis: The approved scheme of arrangement had resulted in the transfer and vesting of the erstwhile company's assets, liabilities, rights and obligations in the resultant company under Section 232(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. Once amalgamation took effect, the transferor company lost independent juristic existence. A proceeding initiated in the name of a non-existent entity could not be sustained, and the subsequent proceedings relied upon by the appellant did not cure the defect in the name under which the Section 9 application had been instituted.

Conclusion: The Section 9 application was not maintainable and its dismissal was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the insolvency petition had been filed by an entity that was no longer in legal existence after amalgamation.

Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding instituted in the name of a company that has ceased to exist on account of amalgamation is not maintainable, as the non-existent entity lacks juristic capacity to sue or be sued.

---