Supreme Court emphasizes show cause notice in impleadment application, directs cooperation and fresh unbiased decisions.

The Supreme Court allowed the application for impleadment and emphasized the necessity of a show cause notice before passing orders. The court treated the impugned orders as show cause notices, directing the first respondent Company to cooperate, permit inspection, submit a reply, and attend a personal hearing. The appellant was instructed to make unbiased decisions based on current circumstances and pass fresh orders without influence. A separate judgment dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, upholding the main judgment's directions, and disposing of the appeals accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
- Application for impleadment
- Necessity of show cause notice before passing orders
- Impugned orders dated 30.11.1999 and 10.12.1999
- Treatment of impugned orders as show cause notices
- Cooperation required from the first respondent Company
- Permission for inspection, investigation, and inquiry
- Issuance of supplementary show cause notice
- Submission of reply by the first respondent Company
- Opportunity for personal hearing
- Passing of fresh orders by the appellant
- Uninfluenced decision-making
- Time gap between orders

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court allowed the application for impleadment and considered the necessity of a show cause notice before passing orders. The court observed that the appellant should have issued a show cause notice to enable the first respondent to present necessary materials and demonstrate how its business activities may not fall under the Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) category.

2. After hearing both parties, the court suggested treating the impugned orders as show cause notices and extending an opportunity to the first respondent to vindicate its stand. The court emphasized the need for cooperation from the first respondent Company, allowing inspection, investigation, and inquiry, and issuing a comprehensive supplementary show cause notice within three months.

3. The first respondent Company was directed to permit free access to records and assist auditors during inspection and verification. Upon receiving the supplementary show cause notice, the company had to submit a reply within six weeks and attend a personal hearing to present materials in support of its stand. The appellant was instructed to pass orders within six weeks after the hearing, based on the materials presented.

4. The court clarified that the appellant should pass fresh orders regarding the business activity of the first respondent Company without being influenced by previous court orders. It was emphasized that the decision should not be based on the merits of the case but on the current circumstances. The court also noted that the time gap between the orders should not prejudice either party.

5. In a separate judgment, the court dismissed the appeal after finding no merit in it, as presented by the respective counsels. The directions provided in the main judgment were upheld, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---