TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order allowing impleadment of the managing director as a defendant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 called for interference in revision.
Analysis: The dispute was treated as arising from internal differences within the company. The Court declined to go into the merits of the company's internal affairs or the rival claims regarding who was the proper person to represent the company at that stage. It observed that whether the litigation instituted in the company's name was bona fide and in the company's interest was a matter for consideration at the time of final disposal of the suit. Since the trial court had exercised discretion in permitting the applicant to come on record, no ground was made out to interfere in revision.
Conclusion: The impleadment order was upheld and the revision petition failed.
Final Conclusion: The revisional court left the parties to agitate their rival contentions before the trial court in the suit and declined to disturb the discretionary order permitting impleadment.
Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory impleadment order based on the trial court's discretion will not be interfered with in revision where the controversy turns on disputed internal company affairs and the bona fides of the litigation can be examined at the trial stage.
TaxTMI 
