Acme Consultant Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Premium Agro Export Ltd. & Ors
- CitationCOMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.259 OF 2019
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party whose presence is necessary for the just decision of a company petition may be impleaded at the appellate stage, and an amendment to a company petition that is necessary for the appellant to put its case effectively may be permitted; the Tribunal's reasons rest on these two propositions, while expressly declining to examine the merits of the amendment, company petition or company application.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI COMPANY APPEAL (AT) NO.259 OF 2019 IN THE MATER OF: ACME Consultant Pvt Ltd & Anr Appellants Vs Premium Agro Export Ltd & Ors Respondents
Mr. Buddy Ragunathan and Ms Sadapurna Mukherjee, Advocates for appellants. Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Advocate for R1. Mr. Avneesh Garg, Advocate for R14. ORDER
14.11.2019- Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he filed an IA
No.133/2017 for amendment and impleading the transferee, Respondent
No.14 Mr Rajiv Kumar Singh but the learned NCLT has disposed off the
application which is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant as Mr. Rajiv
Kumar Singh is a necessary party, he claims to be holder of the 21% shares
and the proposed amendment is also necessary for the just decision of the
company petition. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 who is representing the
company has no say in this regard. Respondent No.14 submits that he is
holding 21% shares and he has been impleaded here as Respondent No.14.
He submits that he has been unnecessarily dragged on.
3. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
We are of the opinion that Respondent No.14 seems to be a necessary party
for just decision of the company petition and so far as the amendment of
Company Appeal(AT) No.259 of 2019 2
company petition is concerned, the proposed amendment is also necessary,
so that the appellant be able to put his case effectively. Therefore, the
impugned order is set aside and the appellant is allowed to amend the petition
as per the proposed amendment and also implead Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh as
Respondent. It is clarified that we have not examined the merits of the
amendment/CP/CA.
4. Hence the appeal is allowed with the above observation. No order as to
costs.
(Justice Jarath Kumar Jain) Member (Judicial)
(Mr. Balvinder Singh) Member (Technical)
(Dr.Ashok Kumar Mishra) Member (Technical)
Bm/nn
Company Appeal(AT) No.259 of 2019
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free