TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1856
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... though the issue restrictively pertains to a direction given by the impugned order dated 01.04.2026, as it was passed by the Ld. Tribunal on IA/130(CHE)/2023, that was preferred by the Appellant / petitioner, seeking impleadment of the proposed Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 to the company petition. The Ld. Tribunal after consideration of the said application had opined that, looking to the current stage of the proceedings of the company petition being carried before Ld. Tribunal, the immediate consideration of the impleadment application, seeking to implead the proposed Respondent Nos. 7 & 8, was not found to be necessary and that the issue and necessity of impleading the proposed Respondent Nos. 7 & 8, will be considered at the stage when the company petition is taken up for hearing. 3. In other words, the decision of the Ld. Tribunal vide impugned order of 01.04.2026, has been that, consideration of IA/130(CHE)/2023, as preferred by the Appellant for impleading the proposed Respondent Nos. 7 & 8, to the company petition has not been closed and it has been deferred to be considered in case the Ld. Tribunal feels the need for the same at the stage of final hearing of the company petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013; (9) Order costs of this Petition be paid by the 2nd Respondent; (10) Such further order or orders and/ or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper;" 6. If the aforesaid reliefs are taken into consideration, the principal relief is as against the complained act of Respondent No.2, holding it to be oppressive and prejudicial to the interest of Respondent No.1 company, and the subsequent reliefs as extracted above would be incidental and consequential in nature. 7. The question that, would arise for consideration is as to whether at all in the light of the relief sought in the company petition, where the action complained of is the action of Respondent No.2, alleging it to be detrimental to the interest of Respondent No.1 company and its shareholders, when the proceedings of the company petition were carried, the pleadings had been exchanged and after the exchange of pleadings the matter had matured to be heard finally, the impleadment sought for by the Appellant by filing the impleadment application on 10.04.2023, being IA/130(CHE)/2023, needs to be considered at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds that, for the purposes of deciding the issue, in context of the relief that, was sought for by the Appellant in the company petition, even if the proposed Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 have been benefited by any act of Respondent No.2 directly or indirectly, that in itself will not make it necessary to implead proposed Respondent Nos.7 & 8, as a necessary party to the proceedings of the company petition, for the reason being that, if at all the diversion of funds and business from R1 to R7 & R8 is proved, it would be for Respondent No.2 to make good the loss consequent upon the decision to be made in CP/51/(CHE)/2022, and to recompense R1 Company for any illegal gains extended to proposed Respondent Nos.7 & 8, and that when the principal proceedings are decided on merits, consequential orders can always be passed. Thus, we can say that, all allegations raised by the Appellant in the interlocutory application, being IA/130(CHE)/2023, is still left open to be considered at the stage when the Ld. Tribunal considers the company petition itself finally on its own merits, which implies that, as of now, there is no finality to the decision on the impleadment application and the order that h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay not be the necessary parties to decide the subject in the company petition, for the reason being that, the entire burden to prove an act of misconduct, oppression or mismanagement has to be established by the Appellant qua the conduct of the Respondent No.2 and for establishing the same we cannot permit the proposed Respondents to be brought on record to aid the Appellant's case, particularly, when they will not be facilitating the proceedings and would rather be supporting the case of Respondent No.2. Thus, the observation made by the Ld. Tribunal that, because of the fact that, the proceedings of the company petition has reached an advanced stage where the pleadings of all the parties have already been completed, there is no necessity to pass any orders on the impleadment application and the same be reserved to be considered if needed at the stage of hearing, does not appear to be violated. 13. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has contended that, the impugned order under challenge dated 01.04.2026, cannot be said to be a reasoned order it has not dealt with the material evidence and documents placed on record by the Appellant. However, inferences to be made from the said e....