Delhi High Court - Orders
Union Of India vs M/S. Jmc Project (I) Ltd on 24 February, 2026
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 367/2023
UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar
Saxena, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari,
Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Ms. Poonam
Shukla & Ms. Vidhotama, Advs.
versus
M/S. JMC PROJECT (I) LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikrant Singh Bloriya, Mr.
Sushant Tomar & Mr. Shubham
Devrani, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
ORDER
% 24.02.2026 I.A. 31262/2025
1. This application is filed for substituting the name of the respondent company „JMC Project (India) Limited‟ to „Kalpataru Projects International Limited‟ formerly known as „Kalpataru Power Transmission Limited‟. Further prayer is for taking on record the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad (NCLT) approving the scheme of amalgamation.
2. Learned counsel for the non-applicant relies upon clause 23 of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) to contend that before amalgamation an approval should have been sought from the non-applicant.
"CLAUSE 23: Changes in the firm's Constitution to be intimated Where the contractor is a partnership firm, the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:43:58 previous approval in writing of the Engineer-in-Charge shall be obtained before any change is made in the constitution of the firm. Where the contractor is an individual or a Hindu undivided family business concern, such approval as aforesaid shall likewise be obtained before the contractor enters into any partnership agreement whereunder the partnership firm would have the right to carry out the works hereby undertaken by the contractor. If previous approval as aforesaid is not obtained, the contract shall be deemed to have been assigned in contravention of Clause 21 hereof and the same action may be taken, and the same consequences shall ensure as provided in the said Clause 21."
3. The contention made is ill-founded. The clause 23 is applicable to partnership firm, HUF and not to limited liability company.
4. Another aspect is that the amalgamation was approved by the NCLT and yet the submission is that in spite of the quasi-judicial order passed, there should have been approval sought from the non-applicant. The objection raised is not sustainable.
5. In view of the above, the application is allowed.
6. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J FEBRUARY 24, 2026 Ch This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:43:58