9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear or not to hear a party depends on the court concluding as to whether he is proper person to be heard and that if the court is of the opinion that one should be heard for a proper adjudication in the issue before it, definitely he should be heard for which he should be made a party to such proceedings. The impleadment of the applicant herein as one of the respondents will not be likely to be effected in any manner the interests of the petitioners in the Company Petition, and that the contention of the petitioners in the CP/respondents 1 to 8 herein that the applicant herein is not a necessary party cannot be accepted. Application is allowed - the applicant herein Mr.C.Mohanan Pillai residing at Krishna Priya, Podiyattuvila PO, Valak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany. The company petition has been filed seeking various reliefs against Respondents 9 to 30 herein, not to further the interest of the 1st respondent company and its shareholders but only to augment their personal interests out of their unholy desire to hijack the company from the original promoters. It is further stated that there is no instance of oppression towards the petitioners and it is not running in a manner prejudicial to public interest. From its inception the applicant herein was associated with Jatayu Eco-Tourism project like all well meaning art and cultural lovers to protect and preserve the Jatayupara Tourism Project, which is one of kind in the whole world. Hence for a proper adjudication in the matter, the applicant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y acts of oppression and mismanagement are complained of. Hence the applicant being only a shareholder who is not involved in the management of the companies, is not a necessary party to the proceedings in the Company Petition. 4. The applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating most of his contentions and stated that the company petition is filed alleging mismanagement and diversion of the shareholders fund to some other companies in the form of investments and inter-corporate loans. The petitioners are preference shareholders holding different lots of shares and thus the applicant being a similarly situated shareholder, he is a necessary party to the proceedings. He has further stated that the decision in Kasturi (supra) is not applicable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impleadment of the applicant herein as one of the respondents will not be likely to be effected in any manner the interests of the petitioners in the Company Petition, and that the contention of the petitioners in the CP/respondents 1 to 8 herein that the applicant herein is not a necessary party cannot be accepted. The averment in the application that the applicant is a shareholder of the 1st respondent company has not been refuted by the respondents 1 to 8 (Petitioners). The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant, as by impleading the applicant herein, no serious prejudice will be caused to the Petitioners. Moreover, as the petitioners in the CP alleged mismanagement and oppression in the company, this Tribunal is of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
