before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12the pleadings it is crystal clear that the petitioners have madevarious averments with regard to the MSM Singapore and soughtrelief to render true, full and proper explanations and accounts ofR1 Company including its subsidiary MSM Singapore. To add aparty to the proceedings one must keep in mind whether the partyis necessary or proper party. A necessary party is one withoutwhom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is onein whose absence an effective order can be made but whosepresence is necessary for a complete and final decision on thequestion involved in the proceeding.CA 177 of 2010Multi ScreenRegulation 46 of CLBRegulations empowers this Bench to amend the petition. Thepresent application is filed seeking amendment of the petition byadding MSM Singapore as Respondent No.7 to the proceedings.The application is in order and this Bench has power to amend theproceedings for the purpose of determining the real question orissue raised by or depending on such proceedings. Further dueprocedure contemplated under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC whichenables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of theproceedings if the person, whose presence before the Court isnecessary in order to enable the Court to effectively andcompletely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved inthe proceedings. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is alsoone of the objects of the said provision. The guidelines of various
13High Courts and the Hon’nle Supreme Court to invoke Order 1Rule 10 of CPC in respect of proper and necessary parties havebeen summarized in the matter of Antony Devaraj vs.Aralvaimozhi (Kurusadi) Devasahayam Mont Oor ThuyaViagula decided on 31 st December, 2003 by the Madras HighCourt in CRP (PD)Nos.652 & 1737 of 2003. Further, the test to beapplied for determining the rights of a party to implead another inpending proceedings namely: whether effective and completeadjudication can be made in the absence of such party even if norelief is claimed against him, whether there is a cause of actionagainst a party proposed to be impleaded, whether a relief is soughtin a proceeding is likely to be made binding on the proposed party,whether the proposed party is likely to be affected adversely byultimate outcome of such proceedings. The person satisfying anyone or more of the tests laid down above can be impleaded. TheLearned Senior Counsel for the respondents relied upon thecitation of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra in the matter of RameshHirachand Kundanmal wherein the Apex Court held that theaddition of the respondent would result in causing seriousprejudice to the appellant and the substitution or the addition of anew cause of action would only widen the issue which is requiredto be adjudicated and settled. The joining of the party wouldembarrass the plaintiff and issues not germane to the suit would beCA 177 of 2010Multi Screen
Page 1 and 2: BEFORE THE COMPANY LAW BOARD,MUMABI
Page 3 and 4: 3under complete control of the R1 C
Page 5 and 6: 5view of the objections raised by t
Page 7 and 8: 7the provisions of Order 1 Rule 3 a
Page 9 and 10: 9company, if those shareholders are
Page 11: 11representatives on the Board of D
Page 15 and 16: 15Companies Act defines the Company
Page 17 and 18: 17shall have all the powers to deal
Page 19 and 20: 19wherein the Bench is of the view
Page 21: 21petition by adding MSM Singapore

before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?