2021 (2) TMI 1306 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Seeking impleadment of applicant to the present company petition - Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT - Present petition is filed by the company along with members/directors of petitioner No. 1-company, which generally is not the case. Thus the interest of all members will be taken care of, albeit without being joined in the proceedings. If the arguments of the applicant are accepted that he has qualified to be impleaded as a party in proceedings under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013, merely because he is a member of the company as described under Section 2(55) of the Companies Act, 2013, then every member may need or file such application, at any stage of the proceedings and the main petition may not see the light of the day ever. There is not even a whisper about any instance/incident/any document to show that non-joinder of the present applicant will prejudice the rights of the proposed petitioner or will prejudice the adjudication of the petition. The petition is filed in the year 2016 whereas the impleadment is filed in 2020 (though not barred) specially when applicant claims that his membership and/or directorship are of 2007-08 and after rounds of litigations are upheld in year 2014. So at the time of filing of present petition in 2016, the same could have been considered to make present applicant as a party or not. There are no merits in the application - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for impleadment of Mr. Vineet Khosla as Petitioner No. 7 in a company petition.
2. Interpretation of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Arguments for and against the impleadment application.
4. Consideration of the application's timeliness and necessity.
5. Assessment of the impact of impleading Mr. Vineet Khosla on the ongoing proceedings.
6. Evaluation of the applicant's rights as a member/director under the Companies Act, 2013.
7. Review of previous orders and directions related to the case.
8. Decision on the impleadment application and its rejection.

Analysis:

1. The application sought to implead Mr. Vineet Khosla as Petitioner No. 7 in a company petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant claimed to be a member and director of the petitioner No. 1-company, seeking statutory relief due to alleged malicious intentions causing harm to the petitioners.

2. The interpretation of Order I Rule 10(2) was crucial in this case, as it allows the court to add necessary parties at any stage of the proceedings for effective adjudication. The applicant relied on this provision to support the impleadment request, emphasizing the need for his presence to address all questions involved in the suit.

3. The arguments presented by both sides revolved around the necessity and timeliness of impleading Mr. Vineet Khosla. While the applicant asserted his rights as a necessary party whose inclusion would impact the outcome, the respondents contended that the application was time-barred and lacked substantive grounds for approval.

4. The tribunal evaluated the timeliness and necessity of adding Mr. Vineet Khosla as a party, considering the potential prejudice to the ongoing proceedings. Despite the applicant's claims, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that his inclusion was essential for the proper adjudication of the petition.

5. The tribunal scrutinized the implications of impleading Mr. Vineet Khosla on the existing case, emphasizing the lack of specific allegations of oppression or mismanagement against him. It highlighted the broader interest of all members being addressed without individual impleadment, cautioning against setting a precedent for indiscriminate impleadment based solely on membership status.

6. The assessment of the applicant's rights as a member/director under the Companies Act, 2013, was a pivotal factor in the decision. The tribunal emphasized that mere membership did not automatically warrant impleadment in proceedings under Sections 241-242, requiring specific allegations of misconduct or harm to justify inclusion.

7. Reviewing previous orders and directions related to the case, the tribunal noted a pattern of frivolous applications filed by the petitioner No. 2, despite warnings from higher authorities to refrain from such actions. This context informed the tribunal's decision-making process regarding the impleadment application.

8. Ultimately, the tribunal rejected the impleadment application, citing lack of merit and failure to demonstrate the necessity of adding Mr. Vineet Khosla as a party. The decision underscored the importance of upholding procedural integrity and discouraging unnecessary applications to expedite legal proceedings.