https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778792 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. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:29:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778792 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. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778792