National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal in Company Law Matter Due to Withdrawal. Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn following the decision on the main Company Petition, allowing the appellants to reserve their rights for future challenges.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: CHENNAI
  • 8
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a challenge by the appellants against an order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad Bench, which rejected their objection to a scheme of amalgamation in the context of Company Petition CP(CAA) No. 35/230/HDB/2024. The appellants, represented by Mr. S. Vedhavel, sought to contest this order. However, subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the main Company Petition was decided on merits on 27.03.2026. In light of this development, the appellants' counsel requested permission to withdraw the appeal while reserving the right to challenge the decision made in the main Company Petition. The tribunal, acknowledging the request, permitted the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, thereby allowing the appellants to retain their rights to further legal recourse regarding the main petition. The decision was made by Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Jatindranath Swain.

Headnote

A) Company Law - Amalgamation - Withdrawal of Appeal - Company Appeal dismissed as withdrawn - National Company Law Tribunal, 2026 - Appellant sought to withdraw the appeal after the main Company Petition was decided on merits, reserving rights to challenge the decision in the main petition. Held that the appeal was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn (Paras 1-1).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeal challenging the order rejecting the objection to the scheme of amalgamation should be dismissed as withdrawn.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Company Appeal was permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn, allowing the appellants to reserve their rights to challenge the decision in the main Company Petition.

Law Points

  • Company law
  • amalgamation
  • withdrawal of appeal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (06) 12

Company Appeal (AT) (CH) No. 57/2026

2026-06-16

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Jatindranath Swain

Mr. S. Vedhavel, Ms. Vaishnavi Ambadipudi

Ganesh Patwari & 6 Ors.

Starlite Global Enterprises (India) Ltd. & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the rejection of an objection to a scheme of amalgamation.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to challenge the NCLT order rejecting their objection.

Filing Reason

The appeal was filed against the order dated 24.02.2026.

Previous Decisions

The main Company Petition was decided on merits on 27.03.2026.

Issues

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn Rights to challenge the main Company Petition decision

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants sought to withdraw the appeal after the main petition was decided. Respondents did not contest the withdrawal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, emphasizing the appellants' right to challenge the main petition's decision in the future.

Judgment Excerpts

The Appellant has put a challenge to the impugned order of 24.02.2026 the Company Appeal is permitted to be 'dismissed as withdrawn'.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the NCLT order dated 24.02.2026, which rejected an objection to the scheme of amalgamation. The main Company Petition was subsequently decided on 27.03.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Companies Act, 2013:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Tax Liability on Income Received Outside Taxable Territory. The court clarified that income brought into the taxable territory after having accrued outside it is taxable, even if it is not the first receipt.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Restores Eviction Order in Tenancy Dispute Due to Validity of Notice. The eviction notice was deemed valid as it complied with the statutory requirement under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.