Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1027 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCHRejection of Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors with 95.97% voting against the said Resolution Plan - prime grievance of the Homebuyers who filed the ‘Applications’, was that the ‘interest’ was not adequately protected and ‘Liquidation’ would worsen their position - addition of parties - necessary/proper party as third respondent or not - HELD THAT:- The ‘addition of parties,’ is one of discretion to be exercised by the concerned Tribunal / Court of Law based on the facts and circumstances of the case - The ‘power of the Court’ to ‘add parties’ is succinctly pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in ‘Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum’ [1958 (5) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is observed that the question of addition of parties under Rule 10 of Order 1 of CPC is generally not one of ‘initial jurisdiction’, of the ‘Court’ but of a ‘judicial discretion’, which has to be exercised in view of all facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases it may raise controversies as to the power of the Court in contra distinction to its inherent jurisdiction or in other words of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. This Tribunal bearing in mind of a crystalline fact that the Petitioner in IA 57/2024 in Comp. App. (AT)(CH)(Ins.) No. 446 of 2023 is a creditor to the Corporate Debtor is not to be impleaded in the instant Appeal as a third Respondent because of the fact that it is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the instant Appeal’ to be decided by this Tribunal on merits, at the time of ‘Final Hearing’. In view of well settled principle in law that ‘to add a person as a prospective – proposed Respondent’ is not a substantive right but undoubtedly, it is one of procedure. As such, this Tribunal unhesitatingly holds that a mere ‘interest of a party’ in the ‘Fruits of Litigation cannot be an ‘acid test’ for it being, impleaded as a ‘party’ - Indeed, an ‘Appellant/Plaintiff’ in an ‘Appeal / suit’ proceedings cannot be coerced to join a ‘person’ as ‘party’ against whom, he/it does not desire to contest, unless it is a compulsion of Law, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal. This Tribunal bearing in mind of the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, in an ‘encircling manner’, comes to a resultant conclusion that the Petitioner/Appellant is not a necessary / proper party, to be arrayed as third Respondent - Appeal dismissed.
|