An insolvency petition filed by a non-existent entity dissolved under a merger scheme is not maintainable.

The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, challenged the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the NCLT, Amaravati Bench, which dismissed its Section 9 petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)

The NCLT had ruled the petition non-maintainable because it was filed on 19.09.2024 in the name of "M/s. Samunnati Agro Solutions Private Limited," an entity that had ceased to exist following a merger approved by the NCLT on 23.12.2022

Under the 2022 Scheme of Arrangement, the original company was amalgamated into the "Resultant Company," M/s. Samunnati Financial Intermediation & Services Private Limited

The Appellant argued that the petition remained maintainable due to a subsequent order dated 04.03.2025, which clarified the "effective date" of the merger and the entity's new nomenclature

Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which governs the initiation of insolvency proceedings by an operational creditor

Sections 230–232 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016, regarding the legal effect of a merger where a transferor company is dissolved without winding up

The fundamental principle applied is that only a "juristic entity" with legal existence at the time of filing has the authority to institute litigation

The Tribunal found that the merger order dated 23.12.2022 explicitly transferred all assets and interests of M/s. Samunnati Agro Solutions Private Limited to the Resultant Company, effectively ending the former's independent legal existence

Consequently, when the Section 9 application was filed on 19.09.2024, the named petitioner was a non-entity in the eyes of the law

The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant’s reliance on the order dated 04.03.2025, clarifying that the condonation of delay or determination of an "effective date" for administrative purposes does not retroactively grant juristic status to a dissolved company for the purpose of past filings

The Tribunal emphasized that since the entity that initiated the proceedings lacked the vested authority to litigate as a juristic entity at the time of institution, the proceedings were fundamentally flawed

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that M/s. Samunnati Agro Solutions Private Limited possessed legal existence on the date the Section 9 application was filed

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed