Usha Martin Ventures Ltd. & Ors vs Usha Martin Ltd. & Anr
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 94 of 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