Court allows intervention by deposit holders and transferees in appeal, emphasizes protecting over 85,000 depositors.

The court allowed deposit holders and transferees to intervene in the appeal, impleading them as respondents. The Central Government, despite a right to make representation, failed to do so in a timely manner, leading to the appeal being filed. Allegations of delay were attributed to officials' negligence, prompting a vigilance enquiry. With over 85,000 depositors at stake, the court emphasized protecting their interests. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded for a fresh decision to consider all parties' representations and safeguard depositors' interests.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impleadment of deposit holders and transferees as respondents in the appeal.
2. Central Government's right to make representation and appeal under the Companies Act.
3. Allegations of delay in filing representation by the Central Government.
4. Consideration of interests of depositors in the case.

Issue 1: Impleadment of deposit holders and transferees as respondents
The judgment addresses Company Application Nos. 32, 36, 37, 38, 40, and 41, where deposit holders or transferees sought to be impleaded as parties in the appeal, fearing adverse effects if the appeal succeeded. The Additional Solicitor General had no objection, leading to the applicants being allowed to intervene and ordered to be impleaded as respondents.

Issue 2: Central Government's right to make representation and appeal
The appeal under section 391(7) of the Companies Act challenged an order approving an arrangement for fixed depositors' debts. The Central Government, per section 394A, had the right to make representation, which the court must consider. Despite multiple opportunities, the Central Government failed to file its representation before the order was passed, leading to the appeal being filed by the Central Government.

Issue 3: Allegations of delay in filing representation by the Central Government
The Central Government alleged that it was unfairly denied an opportunity to file representation, which contained crucial facts not considered by the Single Judge when passing the order. The delay in filing the representation was attributed to the officials' dereliction of duty, prompting a vigilance enquiry. The court acknowledged the importance of the facts in the representation and granted the Central Government another chance to present its case.

Issue 4: Consideration of interests of depositors
In light of the substantial number of depositors likely to be affected, exceeding 85,000, the court emphasized safeguarding their interests. Despite acknowledging the sufficient time granted for representation, the court recognized the need to prevent depositors from suffering due to officials' negligence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision, considering the representation and hearing all parties involved to protect the depositors' interests.

---