before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

14required to be raised. The mere fact that a fresh litigation can beavoided is no ground to invoke the power under the Rule in suchcases. Further the Apex Court held that the question ofimpleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone ofOrder 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a properparty may be added. In the light of the clear language of the Rule,it is not open to the appellant to contend that a person cannot beadded as a defendant even in a case where his presence isnecessary to enable the Court to decide the matter effectively. TheApex Court further held that the addition of parties is generally nota question of initial jurisdiction of the Court but of a judicialdiscretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts andcircumstances of a particular case. Thus the Apex Court left openthe decision of addition of parties to the judicial discretion, in viewof the facts and circumstances therein. In the present case thepetitioners satisfied the tests to be applied for impleading the MSMSingapore as respondent. This Bench is of the view that the MSMSingapore is proper party to the proceedings before this Bench.6.4 The complex issue is that whether the CLB can deal theaffairs of foreign registered wholly owned subsidiary companywhile dealing the affairs of the Holding Company, registered underIndian Companies Act. The Companies Act, 1956 defines the‘Company’ in sub-section (10) of Section 2. Section 3 of theCA 177 of 2010Multi Screen