Vardhman Polytex Limited vs Machinen Umwelttechnik ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) No.22 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A party whose shares were to be purchased under a decree, and who is therefore interested in the execution proceedings, is a necessary and proper party to those proceedings, notwithstanding that the company in which the shares are held has entered corporate insolvency resolution process and its shares have been extinguished, since the question of its necessity turns on the decree rather than on the party's current corporate status. Where a necessary party cannot be located at the address shown in the execution application, the deletion of that party from the array of proceedings is not appropriate; the party should be served at the address recorded in its master data, and the executing court should proceed to serve it there. An order deleting a necessary party made without that party having been effectively served may be recalled to the extent of restoring the party to the array, and the recall does not prejudice the merits of the execution proceedings before the executing court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Vardhman Polytex Ltd. ....Appellant Vs. Machinen Umwelttechnik ....Respondents Transportanlagen Gesellschaft Gmbh & Anr.
Present: For Appellant: Mr. U.K. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mansumyer Singh and Gurpreet Singh, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. Rohit Sud and Ms. Vriti Gujral, Advocates for R-1
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
17.1.2025 - I.A. No.341 of 2025
This is an application seeking exemption from filing the certified/ true
typed/ translated copies of the dim and illegible annexures. The application is
allowed subject to filing of legible copies within two weeks.
Main Appeal
2. This Appeal is against an impugned Order dated 2nd January, 2025
whereby an application for recall of an earlier Order dated 12th September, 2024
was rejected.
3. Vide Order dated 12th September, 2024, at the request of the Respondent,
the Company namely Ms. F.M. Haemmerle Textiles Limited (FMHT, in short) was
deleted from the array of the execution.
2
4. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that
FMHT was a proper and necessary party since as per the decree, the Appellant
was to make payment for purchase of shares of MUT which MUT held in M/s.
FMHT. It is alleged by the Appellant that M/s. FMHT went into CIRP and shares
of both MUT as well as VPL have since been extinguished. However, this is not a
dispute before us and we do not intend to say anything on it. Suffice to say since
the shares of M/s. FMHT were to be purchased by the Appellant, hence it cannot
be said M/s. FMHT is not necessary and proper party before the learned
executing Court. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the Respondent
wherein it is submitted they had made their best efforts to serve M/s. FMHT
including by publication but since M/s. FMHT was not coming forward before
the learned executing Court, they made a statement they do not intend to take
execution any further against M/s. FMHT.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant says the address of the FMHT
as given in the execution application is similar to the address of the VPL - the
Appellant herein. However, if one peruse the master data of FMHT (page 572),
the correct address of FMHT is given as "Office no.4, 2nd Floor, Guru Har Rai
Complex, Industries Estate Road, Near Manju Cinem, aDholewal, Ludhiana,
Ludhiana, Punjab, India 141003", hence it is one of the submissions of the
learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant no service is done as per the master
data.
Comp. App. (AT) No.22 of 2025 3
6. Considering the above, it would be appropriate the Order dated 12th
September, 2024 is recalled to an extent M/s. FMHT shall remain as Respondent
No.2 before the executing Court and the executing Court may now serve the said
Respondent at the address as above, given in the master data.
7. Since the learned Counsel for the Respondent says there has been much
delay, it would be appropriate if the proceedings are concluded expeditiously by
the learned NCLT in a time bound manner, hence on service of M/s. FMHT, the
learned NCLT may endeavour to complete the proceedings before it within eight
weeks thereof.
8. With these observations, we dispose of the Appeal. The pending
applications are also disposed of.
9. Needless to say anything stated above shall not affect the merits of the
case before the learned executing Court.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical) rs/km
Comp. App. (AT) No.22 of 2025
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