Rekha Gupta vs Incred Financial Services Limited

IN THE MATTER OF: Rekha Gupta ...Appellant Versus Incred Financial Services Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondents : Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Mr. Kaustav Som, Mr. Garuish Jain, Mr. Ajay Sharma and Ms. Prachi Dubey, Advocates for R-1.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

23.05.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 18.02.2025 passed

by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur

Bench) by which Intervention Petition No. 1/JPR/2025 has been rejected.

3. A Section 7 application has been filed by the financial creditor which is

proceeding before the adjudicating authority in which Intervention Petition

was filed in the year 2025 by the appellant. Appellant claims a minority

shareholder of the corporate debtor and submits that certain vital facts and

circumstances have not been brought on record. It is submitted that loan

itself was against the provisions of Companies Act, 2013.

4. Learned counsel for the financial creditor submits that appellant is a

minority shareholder who has only 292 shares which shareholding is less than 1% and it is submitted that when the hearing of the financial creditor

was completed thereafter the application for intervention was filed.

5. We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

6. Adjudicating authority in paragraph 3 of the order made following

observations:

"3. Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Prakhar Gupta, stated that the Applicant is a minority shareholder in the Corporate Debtor. We have heard the Counsel, however we find no merit in allowing the said Intervention Application, as shareholders have no locus standi to be impleaded in a petition filed under Section 7 of the Code. The Corporate debtor is defending the matter. Therefore, the Intervention Application, Inv. P (IBC) No. 01/JPR/2025, is hereby rejected and disposed of."

7. The corporate debtor is already defending the proceeding as has been

noticed by the adjudicating authority, permitting minority shareholders to

intervene has rightly not been approved by the adjudicating authority.

8. It goes without saying that adjudicating authority shall take a decision

on application after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the

relevant provisions of law.

9. We thus do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority

rejecting the intervention application.

Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Justice N. Sesha Sayee] Member (Judicial)

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 665 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2585 of 2025 2 of 2