Impleadment in arbitration requires indispensability or direct effect on rights; consequential challenge fails without standing.

Impleadment requires the applicant to show that his presence is indispensable for effective adjudication or that an enforceable right in the subject controversy will be directly affected. A suspended director who was not a party to the arbitration did not satisfy that test merely because a separate CIRP-related appeal was pending. On that basis, rejection of intervention was justified, and the applicant had no standing to challenge the connected order permitting the counterclaim to be pursued before the arbitral tribunal. The broader objection regarding the effect of moratorium on counterclaims could not be maintained after denial of impleadment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had established a legal right to be impleaded as a necessary party in the intervention application; (ii) whether the rejection of impleadment could be interfered with, thereby sustaining a challenge to the order permitting the counterclaim to be pursued before the arbitral tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had established a legal right to be impleaded as a necessary party in the intervention application.

Analysis: Impleadment depends on whether the applicant shows that his presence is indispensable for effective adjudication or that an enforceable right in the subject controversy is likely to be affected. The appellant was not a party to the arbitration in which the counterclaim was directed to be considered, and the pleadings did not show that no effective adjudication of the relevant application could take place in his absence. Mere pendency of the appellant's separate appeal against admission of the corporate debtor into CIRP, or his status as suspended director, did not by itself establish necessity for impleadment. The parameters governing intervention and impleadment were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a necessary party, and rejection of the intervention application was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of impleadment could be interfered with, thereby sustaining a challenge to the order permitting the counterclaim to be pursued before the arbitral tribunal.

Analysis: Once the appellant failed to establish a right to be impleaded in the proceedings concerning permission to pursue the counterclaim, he had no standing to challenge the consequential order granting such permission. The broader objection concerning the effect of moratorium on counterclaims was not available to him in these appeals after the denial of impleadment. No procedural or substantive error was shown in the refusal to implead him, and the challenge to the connected order could not survive independently.

Conclusion: The challenge to the connected order could not be maintained, and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals failed because the appellant could not establish a right to participate in the proceedings below, and the consequential challenge to the order permitting consideration of the counterclaim also could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A person seeking impleadment must show that his presence is indispensable for effective adjudication or that an enforceable right in the subject controversy will be directly affected; without such foundation, consequential challenge to the related order is not maintainable.

---