https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415275 The court concluded that the petitioner/defendant no.2 was neither a proper nor a necessary party to the suit. The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner/defendant no.2 was deleted from the array of parties in the suit. The petition was allowed, as the court found that the only party interested in the impleadment of the petitioner/defendant no.2 was the respondent no.2/defendant no.1, to avoid or reduce its liability. en-us Fri, 26 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:51:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415275 The court concluded that the petitioner/defendant no.2 was neither a proper nor a necessary party to the suit. The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner/defendant no.2 was deleted from the array of parties in the suit. The petition was allowed, as the court found that the only party interested in the impleadment of the petitioner/defendant no.2 was the respondent no.2/defendant no.1, to avoid or reduce its liability. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 26 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415275