9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... editors other than those who triggered the Insolvency Resolution Process, to be impleaded as Parties. In law, the Impleadment of Parties, is ultimately, within the ambit of exercise of discretion by a Tribunal / Authority, as the case may be. More importantly, no person, can be added, unless he is a necessary party. A necessary party means that a person is very much necessary to the Constitution of Suit / an Appeal in a given Proceeding before a Court of Law / Tribunal / Authority. In fact, whether a person has an enforceable legal right is to be looked into by a Tribunal in regard to the impleadment of parties. To array a person as a prospective / proposed Respondent(s) is not a Substantive Right, but undoubtedly, it is one of the procedure and the Tribunal is to exercise its judicial discretion, of course, in a subjective manner, diligently. It cannot be gainsaid that, an Individual will not be added as a Party, just because he will be affected by the Tribunal incidentally, when it passes an Order in a given proceedings, before it. An Appellant / Plaintiff in a given legal proceeding is the dominus litis. He cannot be coerced to include a person as Party against whom, he do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cants / `Proposed Impleaders that the `Liquidator secured the `Police protection for getting the `Trust Management and the people running Petrol Pump, evicted from the respective premises in I.A. No. 229 of 2021, filed by the `Liquidator which is linked to I.A. No. 1155 of 2020, moved by the `Workers Union , explaining numerous problems, they are facing from the `Liquidator , including the Liquidator s trails, to evict the management of `Petrol Pump and `School and IA/1155/2020 moved by the `Workers Union and the person running the `School and the `Petrol Pump is still pending before the `Adjudicating Authority . 3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants point out that the persons running the School and those running the Petrol Pump were put to hardship, though they have filed IA/1155 of 2020, before the `Adjudicating Authority; (`Tribunal ) stating that the `Trust is running the School on the land leased out by the `Corporate Debtor to the `Educational Trust and the `Petrol Pump is run by the `Co-operative Society on the land leased out by the `Corporate Debtor . 4. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants comes out with a plea, that the `Liquidator , at best, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd as such, they have no right to agitate and pray for relief before this `Tribunal , and IA/584/2022 is liable to be dismissed by awarding heavy costs. I.A. No. 585 of 2022 in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 269 of 2022: Applicants Contentions: 9. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants / Appellants (husband and wife) are not parties to the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 269 of 2022, before this `Tribunal, Further. the Applicants in IA/585/2022 had earlier preferred I.A. Nos. 340 and 341 of 2022 in Appeal No. 302 of 2021, seeking `relief in permitting the `Applicants to pay off the total admitted claims, against the `Corporate Debtor and for the release of the `Corporate Debtor from Insolvency. 10. According to the Learned Counsel for the Applicants that it is the version of the `Applicants in IA/585/2022 in Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 269 of 2022, that in I.A. Nos. 340 and 341 of 2022, it was mentioned as to how the ₹ 1st Respondent/erstwhile Liquidator of `The Jeypore Sugar Company Ltd , had acted detrimental to the interests of the company and said that the `Assets Value , being more than the `liability value , t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IA/579/2022, upon seeing the scrap purchaser cutting the machinery of Chagallu sugar factory into scrap, which is worth Crores of Rupees. 15. The categorical stand of the `Applicants is that the `company belongs to them and the said `value of the `company , as on today, is not less than three times to that of the liability of the company. In the past, they could not generate sources for payment, now, they have resources to pay back the money and take the `company , since they are not asking to take back the `company either under Section 30 of the I B Code, 2016, and or under the Section 230 of the Companies Act, 2013, or to purchase it in `Liquidation sale. 16. The other contention advanced on behalf of the `Applicants before this `Tribunal is that Section 29A of the I B Code s, 2016, applicability will come into picture, only when the `Promoters come forward to take back the `company under any of the avenues and even as per Section 29A of the Code, it is mentioned that the person hit by Section 29A is eligible to submit a `Resolution Plan , as per Section 30 of the Code, if such person makes payment of all overdue amounts. 17. In the present case, the `Applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside or not, for which, they may be permitted by this `Tribunal , to be arrayed as R8 and R9 in the instant Comp. App (AT) (CH) INS. No. 269 of 2022, on the file of this `Tribunal . 22. Conversely, it is the contention of the ₹ 1st Respondent / erstwhile Liquidator that the IA/584/2022 and IA/585/2022, filed by the `Applicants in main Comp. App (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 269 of 2022, are liable to be dismissed, because of the fact that the ₹ 1st Respondent / IDBI Bank Officials (in main `Appeal ) and erstwhile `Promoters are hand in glove in subverting the system and process for achieving their illegal goals unmindful of the economic interest of our country. Further, the Bank Officials had disregarded the `Order of Interim Injunction , passed by the `Hon ble Madras High Court in WP No. 4458 of 2021 to achieve their illegal goals, etc. That apart, it is the stand of the ₹ 1st Respondent/erstwhile Liquidator that a `stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceedings, unless he satisfies this `Tribunal that he falls within the purview of `Aggrieved Person . Furthermore, only a person who had suffered or suffers from legal injury can assail the act / acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the `Liquidator (Mr. V. Venkatasivakumar) so as to enable him to discharge his duties as `Liquidator . Arraying of Parties: 29. It must be borne in mind that there is no provision in the I B Code, 2016, that enables the `Creditors other than those who triggered the `Insolvency Resolution Process , to be impleaded as `Parties . In law, the `Impleadment of Parties , is ultimately, within the ambit of exercise of discretion by a `Tribunal / `Authority , as the case may be. More importantly, no person, can be added, unless he is a `necessary party . A `necessary party means that a person is very much necessary to the `Constitution of `Suit / an `Appeal in a given `Proceeding before a `Court of Law / `Tribunal / `Authority . In fact, whether a person has an enforceable legal right is to be looked into by a `Tribunal in regard to the `impleadment of parties . To array a person as a `prospective / proposed Respondent(s) is not a `Substantive Right , but undoubtedly, it is one of the `procedure and the `Tribunal is to exercise its `judicial discretion , of course, in a subjective manner, diligently. 30. It cannot be gainsaid that, an `Individual will no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
