TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diary companies against whom the appellant has not made any allegations in the Petition and no relief has been sought for against need not be added as parties. However, Respondent Nos. 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 and Respondent Nos. 4 and 7 should be added as parties and the appellant shall be at liberty to argue on the grounds in the said Petition and the prayer regarding the alleged mis-manageme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hini Musa, AOR, Mr. Zaffar Inayat, Adv. O R D E R Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shyam Divan and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior counsels appearing for the respondents at length. After having heard the learned counsel/learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties and carefully perusing the material available on record, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s maintainable as the appellant holds 10% of the share capital in the holding company. The High Court is not correct in saying that the subsidiary companies above mentioned should be struck from the array of parties as, if the corporate veil is lifted, the holding and subsidiaries companies will be regarded as one and the same for the purpose of granting relief in the said Petition. The High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
