https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468867 Minority shareholders with an earlier, connected challenge to a settlement order had a direct and substantial interest in writ petitions attacking revocation of that settlement. Because the writ outcome could revive the settlement and vitally affect their rights, they were entitled to be heard and impleaded as respondents. The Court also held that SEBI's presence alone did not make them redundant, since the dispute was not confined to the regulator and the petitioners; effective adjudication required participation of persons whose interests would be directly prejudiced by the result. The impleadment applications were allowed and the applicants were joined as respondents. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 24 May 2026 11:41:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468867 Minority shareholders with an earlier, connected challenge to a settlement order had a direct and substantial interest in writ petitions attacking revocation of that settlement. Because the writ outcome could revive the settlement and vitally affect their rights, they were entitled to be heard and impleaded as respondents. The Court also held that SEBI's presence alone did not make them redundant, since the dispute was not confined to the regulator and the petitioners; effective adjudication required participation of persons whose interests would be directly prejudiced by the result. The impleadment applications were allowed and the applicants were joined as respondents. Case-Laws SEBI Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468867