AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
23.05.2025 : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against an order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench) by which Intervention Petition No. 1/JPR/2025 has been rejected.
A Section 7 application has been filed by the financial creditor which is proceeding before the adjudicating authority in which Intervention Petition was filed in the year 2025 by the appellant. Appellant claims a minority shareholder of the corporate debtor and submits that certain vital facts and circumstances have not been brought on record. It is submitted that loan itself was against the provisions of Companies Act, 2013.
Learned counsel for the financial creditor submits that appellant is a minority shareholder who has only 292 shares which shareholding is less than 1% and it is submitted that when the hearing of the financial creditor was completed thereafter the application for intervention was filed.
We have considered the submissions of counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Adjudicating authority in paragraph 3 of the order made following observations:
“3.Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Prakhar Gupta, stated that the Applicant is a minority shareholder in the Corporate Debtor. We have heard the Counsel, however we find no merit in allowing the said Intervention Application, as shareholders have no locus standi to be impleaded in a petition filed under Section 7 of the Code. The Corporate debtor is defending the matter. Therefore, the Intervention Application, Inv. P (IBC) No. 01/JPR/2025, is hereby rejected and disposed of.”
The corporate debtor is already defending the proceeding as has been noticed by the adjudicating authority, permitting minority shareholders to intervene has rightly not been approved by the adjudicating authority.
It goes without saying that adjudicating authority shall take a decision on application after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the relevant provisions of law.
We thus do not find any error in the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the intervention application.
Appeal is dismissed.