9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V.G. SABHAHIT AND RAVI MALIMATH, JJ. B.C. Thiruvengadam for the Appellant. C.K. Nanda, A. Murali and Povaiah for the Respondent. JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J. - This appeal is filed by the applicants in Company Application No. 49/11 in Company Petition No. 46/08 being aggrieved by the order dated 8-4-2011, wherein application filed by the appellants herein seeking for impleading of the proposed 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties it is unnecessary to go into the merits having regard to the order that is proposed to be passed by us. 5. It is well-settled that in every application for impleading, it is not mandatory for CLB to issue notice to the proposed respondent. If the application is not maintainable or averments do not make out any prima facie case, application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Application No. 49/11 is restored to the file of Addl. Principal Bench at Chennai (Chennai Bench) filed in Company Petition No. 46/2008 with a direction to dispose of the Company Application No. 49/11 after considering the objections filed by the proposed respondent and contentions of applicant and other respondents. 7. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
