2018 (3) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Dinesh and Shri Rajendra Beniwal, Advocate JUDGEMENT A.I.S. Cheema, J. : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.08.2017 passed by learned National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai (NCLT in short) in CA 34/2016 in TCP 180/2016 as she has been directed to be added as party respondent. Respondent No.1 - original petitioner has filed the company petition against present Respondent Nos.2 to 5 alleging the acts of oppression and mismanagement. In the petition, he then filed CA 34/2016 seeking to implead the present appellant and present Respondent Nos.6 to 8. The learned NCLT after hearing the applicant has allowed the same adding Respondent Nos.5 to 8 as were sought by the present....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R3 8333 2.00" 3. The counsel has then referred to CA 34/2016 where the Respondent No.1 without referring to his para - 19 reproduced in the application the reliefs 1 to 5 as were prayed in the company petition and then made the following averments: "3. As can be seen from the reliefs claimed for in the petition, the rights of all the shareholders of the 1st respondent company would be directly affected. The issue giving rise to these rights cannot be adjudicated upon effectively and completely without the presence of these proposed parties. Since these persons continue to be the shareholders, their presence in the proceedings becomes necessary. These persons are proper and necessary parties for the adjudication of the issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ara - 19 of the company petition. In the application for impleadment, no case has been made out as to why the present appellant was a necessary party. It has been argued that when no relief has been sought against the present appellant, she could not have been impleaded as a respondent. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already filed criminal complaint against the Respondents 3 and 4 relating to cheating which has been investigated. The appellant had invested Rs. 1.5 crores for equity shares in the respondent company and again Rs. 9.5 crores to set up the company and had even mortgaged her property. The amount was given to the respondents 2 and 3. It is stated that some shares were issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in para - 6 as under: "It is submitted that the 7th Respondent cannot be made as a party in the present petition just because she is a shareholder of the Company specifically when there are no allegations and no specific prayer made against her. The present application is only to annoy the 7th Respondent by impleading here in a longstanding litigation between the Applicant and the contenting Respondents." 7. According to the learned counsel, it is in the interest of the appellant herself that she should be party in the company petition. He says that Respondent No.1 does not know the details of the shareholders of the company. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1, however, agreed that if records of ....