9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n endeavour was made to rehabilitate the company. 2. In the said reference directions came to be passed on 20-7-2009 by the BIFR recording that despite ample time and opportunity there had been done little to revive the company and therefore it did not visualize the company reviving itself. The BIFR went on to observe that the change of management ordered earlier had also not produced the desired results and therefore it was just and equitable and in public interest to wind up the company. In the very same order it was also noticed that company had entered into a lease arrangement with another entity without the by and leave of the BIFR; which continued to operate despite BIFR's disapproval. The BIFR thus directed issuance of show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Now, turning to the impleadment application filed by Mr. Ghanshyam Sarda/respondent No. 1, the plea of impleadment before the AAIFR is predicated on the right claimed as a shareholder of one Rainey Park Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. ('RPSL'), which in turn holds a substantial part of the equity share in the petitioner/company. RPSL is stated to have acquired almost 87.63 per cent of the equity of the petitioner/company. In paragraph 36 of the award it is noted that 50 per cent of the share is owned in the petitioner/company by the Sarda family. Therefore, respondent No. 1 based on the very same award has claimed that he has a stake in the share holding of the petitioner/company to the extent 16.67 per cent. 7.1 In the impleadment application various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also averred that disputes between the existing management and the workers have erupted as the MOU between the two was not honoured. The workers are stated to have formed an association and have purportedly expressed their willingness to support the respondent No. 1 to take over the management of the petitioner/company. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There can be no dispute about the proposition that it is not necessary to implead each direct or even an indirect shareholder of the petitioner/company. However, what has to be kept in mind is that the principles applicable to impleadment of parties are not those governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'). The right of an applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on & Conciliation Act. In view of the apprehensions expressed by respondent No. 1, which in turn to some extent is supported by the orders passed by the BIFR proposing to wind up the company, one cannot say that respondent No. 1 is an outsider having no interest in the proceedings before AAIFR wherein one of the grounds of challenge is to the show cause notice issued by BIFR to wind up the company. The order of the BIFR seeks to recommend winding up and take action against the management for breach of orders. This order is sought to be assailed before the AAIFR. Respondent No. 1, as submitted by the learned counsel, seeks revival of the petitioner/company and to present an alternative mode of management which may or may not be acceptable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
