Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. & Ors vs Usha Martin Ltd. & Anr

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal22 April 2019

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A lender that has a nominee director on the company's Board of Directors, in a petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 alleging oppression and mismanagement, may properly be permitted by the Tribunal to intervene, notwithstanding that the lender is not a necessary party to the petition.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

Company Appeal (AT) No. 94 of 2019 IN THE MATTER OF: Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. & Ors. ....Appellants Vs. Usha Martin Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents Present:

For Appellants: Mr. Sidharth Yadav and Mr. Soumya Dutta, Advocates For Respondents: Mr. Azeem Chaturvedi and Mr. Milind Sharma, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Vikash Kumar Jha and Mr. Karan Khanna, Advocates for SBI.

ORDER

22.04.2019: The Appellant 'Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. & Ors.'

(hereinafter referred to as 'Appellants/Petitioners') filed Petition under

Section 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 alleging oppression and

mismanagement against 'Usha Martin Ltd. & Anr.' (hereinafter referred

as 'Respondents'). The State Bank of India filed an intervention

application, which was allowed by National Company Law Tribunal,

Kolkata Bench, Kolkata by order dated 30.01.2019.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants/Petitioners

submitted that State Bank of India being a lender is not a necessary

party nor a formal party and, therefore, it cannot be impleaded as

Respondents in a petition under Section 241 & 242 of the Companies

Act, 2013.

-2-

3. Referring to the impugned order, it is submitted that even the

Tribunal observed that the State Bank of India is not a necessary party,

inspite of the same, it has allowed to intervene the Respondents.

4. Counsel for the Respondent - State Bank of India submitted that the

bank has a nominee Director in the Board of Directors of the company

who is required to be present in board meetings in the interest of the

company.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as we find that the

lender State Bank of India has a nominee as one of the Director of the

Company and the petitioner have alleged mismanagement of the

company, we hold that the Tribunal rightly allowed the State Bank of

India to intervene in the matter. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No

cost.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A.I.S Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

sa/gc

Company Appeal (AT) No. 94 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