Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (3) TMI 1459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve prejudice would be caused to applicant as he would have had no opportunity to file a proposal for its revival - In terms of impugned order amongst other directions, a direction came to be issued allowing said impleadment application - Held that:- respondent No. 1 had right to present his point of view. since proceedings before AAIFR were second step arising from orders passed by BIFR whereby it had come to a prima facie view to wind up petitioner-company, AAIFR had deemed it appropriate to implead respondent No. 1 as a party. therefore, there was no reason to exercise jurisdiction under article 226 to interfere with impugned order - WP(C) 2839 OF 2010 AND CM NO. 5670 OF 2010 (STAY) - - - Dated:- 8-3-2011 - SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND RAJIV .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... being Appeal No. 186/2009; which is pending adjudication. 4. It is in the course of the appeal proceedings, that an interim application being: MA No. 34/10 came to be filed by one Sh. Ghanshyam Sarda, i.e., respondent No. 1, seeking impleadment. In terms of the impugned order dated 18-3-2010, amongst other directions, a direction came to be issued allowing the said impleadment application. 5. This impleadment is sought to be assailed by the petitioner/company in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The current management of the petitioner is with Mr. Govind Sarda. There are three brothers - Mr. Govind Sarda, Mr. Jagdish Sarda and Mr. Ghanshyam Sarda. There were inter se disputes betwee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the company if the show cause notice issued by the BIFR evincing a prima facie view to wind up the company is confirmed by the AAIFR, grave prejudice would be caused to the applicant as he would have had no opportunity to file a proposal for its revival. 7.2 Apart from the above, respondent No. 1 has further pleaded that he never interfered in the management of the petitioner/company and that the same was being managed by the board of directors appointed by Sh. Govind Sarda since he had been allowed to look after the affairs of the petitioner/company on behalf of the three brothers. Mr. Jagdish Sarda is alleged to have transferred his right, title and interest in the property and that since then the management of the petitioner/co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ut prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the powers of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority, shall include the power to determine the extent to which persons interested or claiming to be interested in the subject-matter of any proceeding before it may be allowed to be present or to be heard, either by themselves or by their representatives or to cross-examine witnesses or otherwise to take part in the proceedings." 9. In terms of the said provision the BIFR or the AAIFR allows parties to be represented or even be heard after determining the extent of their interest or claimed interest "in the subject matter of any proceeding" before it. In other words representation of a party, by allowing his or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ight to present his point of view in the form of a proposal/scheme before either the BIFR or the AAIFR to revive the petitioner/company. The proceedings before the AAIFR are the second step arising from the orders passed by the BIFR whereby it has come to a prima facie view to wind up the petitioner/company. It is in these circumstances that the AAIFR has deemed it appropriate to implead respondent No. 1 as a party. As far as we can see the objective of the petitioner (represented by Govind Sarda) and respondent No. 1 is not contrary to the interest of the company, which on the face of it appears to be to seek its revival. To that limited extent, both stand aggrieved by the order of the BIFR. 11. We thus see no reason to exercise our .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates