2024 (7) TMI 1261 - AT - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Impleadment as a party to the proceedings - necessary party to the proceedings or not - whether the Impleadment Application, as it has been preferred by the Respondent No.1 could at all have been allowed without there being a notice issued to him, who was sought to be impleaded in order to enable him to put forth his views on whether at all he happens to be the necessary party to the proceedings or not? HELD THAT - As far as the aspect of impleadment is concerned from the perspective of the Appellant, that there was no prior notice given to him, it is an aspect which has already been dealt with, coupled with the fact since the issue of impleadment being exclusive prerogative of the court because it is the court which has to determine the necessity of the party to be introduced in the proceedings as to whether if at all it is the necessary party to decide the case effectively, there are no error in the Impugned Judgment under challenge allowing the Impleadment Application. The Appeal lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Impleadment of the Appellant without prior notice.
2. Appellant's necessity as a party in the CIRP proceedings.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Applicability of legal precedents and rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Impleadment of the Appellant without Prior Notice:
The Appellant argued that the Impugned Order dated 26.11.2020, which directed his impleadment as an Additional Corporate Debtor in the CIRP proceedings, was passed ex parte without issuing any prior notice to him. The Appellant contended that this lack of notice violated the principles of natural justice. He asserted that the order was vitiated as it imposed litigation upon him without providing an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, however, referred to legal precedents, including judgments from the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court, which established that prior notice is not mandatory for impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 of CPC. The Tribunal concluded that the decision to implead a party is an exclusive prerogative of the court or tribunal, based on the necessity for effective adjudication of the proceedings. Hence, the Tribunal found no error in the Impugned Judgment allowing the impleadment application without prior notice.

2. Appellant's Necessity as a Party in the CIRP Proceedings:
The Impugned Order impleaded the Appellant as an Additional Corporate Debtor for two reasons:
1. The Appellant is a major shareholder of the Corporate Debtor.
2. The Appellant is managing, controlling, and operating the affairs of the Corporate Debtor.

The Appellant argued that mere shareholding does not establish control over the Corporate Debtor's affairs. He cited the Vodafone International Holdings BV vs. Union of India case, emphasizing that subsidiary companies are separate legal entities with their own managerial and operational rights. The Appellant contended that the Operational Creditor failed to establish that he controlled and managed the Corporate Debtor's affairs, and thus, he should not be impleaded.

The Tribunal noted that the Appellant held 65% of the shares and had major managerial control over the Corporate Debtor since 1st December 2017. The Tribunal referred to the Mamatha vs. AMB Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. case, which supported the conclusion that the Appellant, having significant control and shareholding, was a necessary party for effective adjudication of the CIRP proceedings.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Appellant contended that the Impugned Order violated the principles of natural justice by impleading him without prior notice. He argued that the lack of notice deprived him of the opportunity to present his case and defend against the impleadment.

The Tribunal, however, held that the principles of natural justice were not violated. It emphasized that the necessity of impleadment and the issuance of prior notice are discretionary aspects, determined by the court or tribunal based on the specifics of the case. The Tribunal found that the Appellant was given an opportunity to present his case after the impleadment, thus satisfying the requirements of natural justice.

4. Applicability of Legal Precedents and Rules:
The Appellant argued that the Impugned Order disregarded the procedures prescribed under Rules 34, 37, 44, and 150 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. He also cited the Axis Bank vs. Lotus Three Developments Limited case, asserting that a shareholder cannot be impleaded as an Additional Corporate Debtor without establishing financial debt payable by him.

The Tribunal considered these arguments but concluded that the Impugned Order was consistent with legal precedents and rules. It reiterated that the decision to implead a party is based on the necessity for effective adjudication and that the Appellant's significant shareholding and managerial control justified his impleadment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Impugned Order that impleaded the Appellant as an Additional Corporate Debtor in the CIRP proceedings. It found that the lack of prior notice did not violate the principles of natural justice and that the Appellant's significant shareholding and managerial control made him a necessary party for effective adjudication. The Tribunal's decision was supported by relevant legal precedents and rules, affirming the validity of the Impugned Order.