https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465297 NCLAT dismissed multiple interlocutory applications seeking impleadment and intervention in pending insolvency appeals. Applying Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and SC precedents, the Tribunal held that only parties with a direct, present and subsisting interest in the subject matter can be impleaded as necessary or proper parties; collateral or extinguished interests are insufficient. In view of the approved resolution plans, all claims and rights of erstwhile shareholders and operational creditors stood extinguished, with NIL or full payouts as provided, leaving no locus to re-agitate issues or reopen concluded matters. An application under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC for intervention to address questions of law was also rejected, NCLAT holding that the provision is enabling, not a right, and cannot be invoked by complete strangers to the proceedings. en-us Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 19:06:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465297 NCLAT dismissed multiple interlocutory applications seeking impleadment and intervention in pending insolvency appeals. Applying Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and SC precedents, the Tribunal held that only parties with a direct, present and subsisting interest in the subject matter can be impleaded as necessary or proper parties; collateral or extinguished interests are insufficient. In view of the approved resolution plans, all claims and rights of erstwhile shareholders and operational creditors stood extinguished, with NIL or full payouts as provided, leaving no locus to re-agitate issues or reopen concluded matters. An application under Order 1 Rule 8A CPC for intervention to address questions of law was also rejected, NCLAT holding that the provision is enabling, not a right, and cannot be invoked by complete strangers to the proceedings. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465297