AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This company appeal is listed as defective for the defects which has been pointed out by the Registry which needs to be rectified and also for orders on application for condonation of delay in refiling i.e., IA No. 1015/2025, where the Appellant has sought a condonation of 32 days of delay, which has chanced in refiling the appeal.
Having heard the counsel for the parties, and after going through the application preferred for seeking condonation of delay, and being satisfied with the reasons, that has been given, which is on the ground that there was no communication from the Registry, about the defects that was pointed out by the Registry, there had chanced a delay of 32 days in refiling, of the company appeal which deserves to be condoned.
Being satisfied with the reasons given therein, coupled with the fact that since the aspect of delay in refiling, is exclusively an issue between this Appellate Tribunal and the Appellant, the delay in refiling would stand condoned, accordingly, IA No. 1015/2025, would stand ‘allowed’.
The Registry of this Tribunal has pointed out the following defects: -
(i)“IA for delay condonation is not filed
(ii)Main order no. of the impugned order was not mentioned in Relief sought
(iii)The number of days delayed in re-filing the appeal was not mentioned
(iv)There is double pagination
(v)All documents were not uploaded in single PDF (IA)
(vi)Page numbering of e-copy is not properly done”
Since, the Appellant- in- person and the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, have consented to address the appeal on merits, the defects as pointed out by the Registry, since not being so fatal, the same would stand over-ruled and the company appeal will be now taken up to be heard on its own merits.
The grievance as agitated by the Appellant herein in the instant company appeal is, as against the impugned order of rejecting the Intervention petition, being IA(IBC)/28/2024, as it was preferred by the Appellant in CP(IB) No. 420/7/HDB/2018, Axis Bank & Ors Vs. Lanco Amarkantak Power Limited, being the proceedings carried under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, before the Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad.
The brief facts, which have emerged for consideration from the records are that, the Appellant claims that he was an employee of the Corporate Debtor (Lanco Amarkantak Power Ltd.) and his services are said to have been wrongly terminated. For the purposes of agitating his grievances, as against the act of termination of his services, he has submitted that he has approached the Writ Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 8679/2023, before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh on 09.04.2024 with the following observations, which are extracted hereunder: -
1.“Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he seeks permission of this court to withdraw this writ petition (s) with liberty to file a Civil Suit raising his grievance before the Civil Court.
2.Permission is granted.
3.Accordingly, the writ petition (s) is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner.
4.Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.”
After, the dismissal of the writ petition as stated above, the Appellant has chosen not to file a Civil Suit before the Civil Court, which he had opted for. Rather, he filed an application for intervention on 01.07.2024, seeking himself to be impleaded in the proceedings of the company petition, contending that he is a shareholder of the Corporate Debtor and hence, he would be the necessary party to be impleaded in the proceedings of the company petition.
The said application has been rejected by the Ld. NCLT on the ground that the Appellant does not happen to be a necessary party, because being a shareholder, he would be having no locus to be impleaded, and hence he would not be a necessary party for the purposes of adjudication of the Company Petition (IB) No. 420/7/HDB/2018.
The aforesaid principle, as to what right the shareholder enjoys, for the purposes of his participation in the proceedings under the I & B Code, 2016, has already been dealt by this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.62/2023 in the matter of Park Energy Private Limited V State Bank of India & Another, as it has been decided by this Appellate Tribunal by the judgment dated 22.07.2025.
Since shareholders do not have any right as such to agitate their grievance, qua the proceedings drawn under Section 7 of the I & B Code, 2016, the rejection of the intervention of the Appellant by the Ld. Tribunal, does not suffer from any apparent error which would call for any interference. The ‘appeal’ lacks ‘merit’ and the same is accordingly, ‘dismissed’.