2018 (1) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rahul Kukreja, Advocates For The Respondents : None ORDER Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants. In this matter the Company Petition No. 46/2006 is pending before the learned National Company Law Tribunal at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'NCLT') since 2006. Learned Counsel for the Appellants is submitting that the Appellants had filed I.A. No. 189/2017, I.A. No. 190/2017, I.A. No. 276/2017 and I.A. No. 277/2017 seeking certain impleadments and amendments but the applications were rejected by the learned NCLT. 2. The Counsel for the Appellants stated that the NCLT is under wrong impression that the Appellants are prolonging the matter. It is stated that the Company had only one immovable property at Goa and the Appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facts on record and so these applications should have been allowed as they relate to subsequent events which have occurred. 3. The impugned order in I.A. No. 189/2017 in C.P. No. 46/2006 is a short order which reads as under: "The instant application is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to implead one Mr. Jitendra Lavjibhai Patel, as a party to the Company Petition apart from other prayer. On perusal of the record, it reflected from Form 32, that Jitendra Lavbhai Patel was appointed as a Director of the Uniworth Resorts Limited sometime on 05.02.2010, whereas the C.P. is filed sometime in the year 2006. But the petitioner from 2010 till 2017 had made no endeavor to make him party to the main C.P. That apart, had the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at page no. 104 of the petition. The said documents were also available in the M.C.A. Portal. Had the petitioner been interested or vigilant in pursuing the matter, he could have obtained the certified copy from the R.O.C. or from the M.C.A. Portal in 2006 itself and could have impleaded the proposed party in C.P. Now after 9 years, that too without any valid reason, petitioner filed the instant petition to add the proposed party in the C.P. by allowing amendment in C.P. Furthermore, in the prayer, petitioner sought for declaratory orders in the petition for amendment. In my view, the Interlocutory Application, no declaratory order could be passed and the prayer itself is bad in eye of law. Under such circumstances I found no reas....