Court dismisses appeal on impleadment in oppression case; nominee director's removal bars representation claim. Shareholding transfer deems status irrelevant.

The court dismissed the appeal against the rejection of the Appellant's impleadment in an oppression and mismanagement petition concerning Respondent No. 3. The court upheld the decision that the Appellant, removed as a nominee director by the nominating group, could not claim to represent their interests. Additionally, the Appellant's shareholding transfer rendered her shareholding status irrelevant to the proceedings. Consequently, the court found no valid reason for the Appellant to be impleaded in the dispute and dismissed the appeal and related applications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Impleadment of the Appellant in the oppression and mismanagement petition.
2. Validity of Appellant's removal as nominee director.
3. Appellant's shareholding status in Respondent No. 3.

Summary:

(i) Impleadment of the Appellant in the oppression and mismanagement petition:

The present appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 is directed against the order dated 23rd September 2015, whereby the Appellant's application for impleadment in an oppression and mismanagement petition concerning Respondent No. 3-Eden Park Hotels Pvt. Ltd., was rejected by the Company Law Board (CLB). The Appellant, a former shareholder and nominee director of Respondent No. 3, sought to be impleaded to oppose the petition filed by the DKJ Group against the SKG Group.

(ii) Validity of Appellant's removal as nominee director:

The Appellant argued that her removal as a nominee director was unjustified and that she had always acted in the interests of the DKJ Group. However, the court noted that the Articles of Association (AoA) allowed the nominating group to withdraw their support for a nominee director at any time. The DKJ Group, upon noticing that the Appellant was acting against their interests, withdrew her nomination and appointed a new director. The court upheld the CLB's decision that the Appellant, having lost the support of the DKJ Group, could not claim to represent their interests and thus was not a necessary party to the proceedings.

(iii) Appellant's shareholding status in Respondent No. 3:

The Appellant's contention that her shareholding of 50,000 equity shares necessitated her impleadment was dismissed. The court noted that the Appellant had transferred her shares to Ms. Usha Jain, which was confirmed by an order dated 31st March 2016 in a separate company petition. Therefore, her shareholding status was no longer relevant to the current proceedings.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the Appellant, having lost the support of the DKJ Group and transferred her shareholding, had no valid cause to be impleaded in the dispute. The appeal was dismissed, along with other pending applications.

---