https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289957 Applicants who had received substantial transfers from an ex-director's account and were linked to movement of funds and jointly held lockers were properly impleaded as necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC because their presence was required for complete and effective adjudication of the alleged siphoning and disposal of assets. On that basis, the Tribunal refused to recall or vacate the earlier impleadment and restraint order, holding that the recall and vacation applications were not maintainable on merits. The applicants therefore remained impleaded as respondents and the restraining directions continued in force. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Sep 2020 10:27:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289957 Applicants who had received substantial transfers from an ex-director's account and were linked to movement of funds and jointly held lockers were properly impleaded as necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC because their presence was required for complete and effective adjudication of the alleged siphoning and disposal of assets. On that basis, the Tribunal refused to recall or vacate the earlier impleadment and restraint order, holding that the recall and vacation applications were not maintainable on merits. The applicants therefore remained impleaded as respondents and the restraining directions continued in force. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 04 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289957