Mr. Arunachalam Tenzing & Anr vs Ms. Rajalakshmi Vardarajan & Ors

This instant Company Appeal is accompanied with the Condone Delay Application, seeking condonation of delay, which has chanced in refiling of the appeal, being IA No. 1266/2025. Since the delay which has been sought to be condoned is 6 days, being satisfied with the reasons given in para II(2)(3) of the said application, the delay of 6 days would stand condoned.

This Company Appeal which has been preferred by the Appellant/Applicant is giving a challenge to the impugned order dated 27.06.2025, by virtue of which the Impleadment application, being IA(IBC)/ 1425 (CHE)/2024, that was preferred by the Appellant for seeking to be impleaded in I.A(IBC)/1752 (CHE)/2023 in CP/1021/IB/2018 has been rejected by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

For the purposes of seeking the Impleadment in the application, the Ld. counsel for the Appellant has submitted that, earlier in the same proceedings of the Company Petition that is, CP/1021/IB/2018, he has been permitted to be impleaded based on the orders passed in IA No.299/2021 in IA No. 728/IB/2020 and therefore he should be impleaded in the instant case on the same grounds. However that order of Impleadment as passed by the Tribunal on 02.03.2023, will not grant any benefit of parity to the Applicant for the purposes of being impleaded in I.A(IBC)/1752 (CHE)/2023, because the said order was an order by consent only and hence no parity can be derived from it. The reason, which has been assigned by the Tribunal in rejecting the impleadment application is that, since the Appellant is only a Debenture Holder of the Corporate Debtor and he has already filed his claim before the Liquidator, he may not be the necessary party to be impleaded for the purposes of adjudication of the I.A(IBC)/1752 (CHE)/2023. The Ld. counsel for the Appellant has also admitted in his pleadings that, as far as, I.A(IBC)/1752 (CHE)/2023 is concerned, no averments have been made therein against the Appellant nor any relief has been sought against herein in the said application.

In that eventuality, the Appellant does not become a necessary party to be impleaded in the said IA, when there is no relief sought against him. Besides that, under the settled principles of Dominus Litis, it is always the applicant's prerogative to choose his opponent and any person cannot insist upon to be made a party, unless the Appellant has chosen him to be made as party to the proceedings.

Therefore, the applicant to the Impleadment application, Appellant herein cannot force upon to be impleaded in the proceedings according to his own choice and wisdom, and that too particularly when it is Appellant's own case, that there is no relief sought in the said application, against him, the present Appellant and that the Appellant has already raised a claim before the Liquidator and all his rights and interests are already safeguarded in the proceedings. The counsel for the appellant in support of his contention to justify his Impleadment in I.A(IBC)/1752 (CHE)/2023, has relied upon the judgment rendered by the principal bench in the matters of Aashray Social Welfare Society & Ors Vs Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. He has, particulary made reference to para 22 of the said judgment. If the facts and circumstances of the said case which has been referred to, are considered, it was an Impleadment, which was being considered in relation to the controversy pertaining to the rights, inter-se between the members of the society who were 102 in number in the said case, and the relief which was sought therein was in relation to their functions, which has been dealt with in para 1 of the said judgment. Apart from it, in para 22, the conclusion which has been derived by the Ld. Principal Bench, is that the parties seeking impleadment have a right to be heard in the proceedings and therefore are to be impleaded as the parties to the proceedings.

But, so far, as the present case is concerned, it is clear from the Appellant's own pleadings as well as from the findings recorded in the impugned order that it is not a case where in the absence of the Appellant, the application I.A(IBC)/1752 (CHE)/2023 cannot be effectively decided, without making him as party.

In that eventuality, we do not find any error in the Impugned Order, which could call for any interference. Hence, the Company Appeal (AT(CH)(Ins) No. 441/2025, lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.