TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent no 9. Mr. Onkar Ganguly, Ms. Ayanabha Raha and Mr. Krishanu Mondal For the respondent no 10. Mr. Ranajit Chowdhury and Ms. Sampoorna Saha For the respondent no 11. Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv. And Ms. Sristi Roy For the respondent no 13 Mr. Shiv Nangal Singh and Mr. Madhu Shaw For the Indian Bank Mr. Debarshi Saha Mr. Avirup Ray Sanyal Ms. Sucheta Pal and Mr. Jyotishman Sarkar .For the Bank of India. Mr. Roshan Gaud and Mr. Bharat Siddhpura .For the Resolution Professional. ORDER Krishna Rao, J.: 1. The applicants, namely, Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Jitendra Mohan Gupta and Abhishek Gupta are suspended directions of the petitioner no. 1 company, have filed the present application being CAN 1 of 2025 praying for addition of the applicants in the writ petition as petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2. Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicants submits that initially the company, namely, Gupta Power Infrastructure Ltd. along with one of its directors, namely, Pravin Kumar Agarwal has filed the writ petition praying for a direction upon the respondent no. 13 to recall and/or rescind and/or cancel the impugned Forensic Audit Report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. He submits that the reasons on the basis of which the petitioners are intending to be added as petitioners in the writ application cannot be a reason for adding them as petitioners. 9. Mr. Mainak Bose, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondent no. 13 submits that the application filed by the applicants for addition of party is not maintainable. The applicants cannot proceed with the writ petition filed by the petitioner no. 1 company. He submits that the writ petition was filed by the company, namely, Gupta Power Infrastructure Ltd. being the petitioner no. 1 and Mr. Pravin Kumar Agarwal, being the director of the petitioner no. 1 company. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner no. 2 is the authorized signatory of the petitioner no. 1 company and has filed the said writ petition on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 company. In the affidavit portion of the writ petition, it is mentioned that the petitioner no. 2 affirmed the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 company as authorized signatory and as such the petitioner no. 2 has not for himself also filed the said writ petition. 10. Mr. Bose submits that the cause of action for fili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14. Mr. Mahapatra submits that as per the forensic report, the primary business is of the petitioner company. In the forensic audit report, there are several related parties, if at this stage, the application of the applicants for addition of party is allowed, there is every chance that the other related parties may also come and filed an application for addition of the parties which will create the multiplicity of the proceeding in future. 15. The company, namely, Gupta Power Infrastructure Limited has filed the writ application along with one of the directors, namely, Pravin Kumar Agarwal as the petitioner no. 2. In paragraph (2) of the writ application, it is mentioned that the petitioner no. 2 being the authorized signatory of the petitioner no. 1 company is duly authorized to file the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 company and the writ petition has been signed, verified and instituted by the petitioner no. 1 through the petitioner no. 2. In paragraph 13, it is stated that the forensic audit reports dated two of which are 19th March, 2024 and two of which are dated 29th June, 2024 submitted by the respondent no. 13 are mala fide, baseless and prepared in co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, whether as the plaintiff or the defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon settled all the questions involved in the suit be added. 20. After admission of the petitioner no. 1 company in CIRP, unless the Resolution Professional is not agreed to proceed with the proceeding initiated by the petitioner company before admitted into CIRP, the petitioner company cannot proceed with the matter. Learned Advocate appearing for the RP submits before this Court that he will not proceed with the writ application filed by the petitioner company. The applicants were the directors of the petitioner no. 1 company. Due to the forensic audit report, the rights of the applicants are also affected. In the writ petition, the audit reports are under challenge. If the petitioner no. 1 company will not be able to proceed with the writ petition, the applicants have the rights to proceed with the said proceeding. It is not the case of the respondents that for the directors of the company, a separate audit report is submitted. The audit report is under challenge in the writ petition and in the said audit repo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner no. 2 is formal in nature and will not change the nature and character of the writ application. It is the admitted fact that the Tribunal has passed an order wherein the petitioner no. 1 company admitted into CIRP and RP is appointed. 30. Considering the above, the petitioner no. 2 is allowed to amend the writ application as indicated in Annexure "P/2" of CAN No. 2 of 2025. 31. The petitioner no. 2 had filed another application being CAN No. 3 of 2026 praying for an order for transposition of the petitioner no. 1 as respondent no. 14 in WPA No. 2128 of 2025. 32. Mr. Thaker submits that the petitioner no. 1 company along with the petitioner no. 2 i.e. one of the directors filed the writ petition challenging the forensic audit reports. Pending disposal of the writ application, the petitioner no. 1 company admitted into CIRP. After the admission into CIRP, the petitioner no. 1 company cannot proceed with the writ petition unless the RP is ready and willing to proceed with the same being the representative of the petitioner no. 1. 33. Mr. Thaker submits that the RP appointed by the Tribunal is not willing to proceed with the writ application filed by the petitioner ....