At, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
By, CHAIRPERSON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANSI LAL BHAT
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Appellants: Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, K.V. Balakrishnan, S.M. Sundaram & Vijay Kari Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Aayush Aggarwal, R2, Abhishek Aggarwal, R1 to R61, Ashutosh Gupta, R62, Anand Mishra, Advocate.
Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson
1. Shri Shyam Haribhau Sapkal and 60 others-respondents (hereinafter referred to as petitioners) filed a petition under Sections 397, 398, 399, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging oppression and mismanagement against The New Akot Cotton Ginning & Pressing Company Ltd. and 6 others- appellants (hereinafter referred to as respondents). The petition was filed on 23rd March, 2016 before erstwhile Company Law Board.
2. On constitution of National Company Law Tribunal, the matter was transferred to National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) whereinafter 10 Interlocutory Applications were moved by Kashinath Chingalal Lahariya and 9 others on 10th March, 2017 for their impleadment as party to the said petition.
3. The Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that the case is pending since 2016 and Interlocutory Applications were filed for impleadment after one year i.e., on 10th March, 2017 and that the Intervenors are necessary parties, refused to allow Intervention Applications. However, Advocate Mr. Rishi Sood, legal representatives of these applicants was appointed as amicus curiae in dispensation of the main petition by impugned order dated 20th July, 2018. The appellants-The New Akot Cotton Ginning & Pressing Company Ltd and others who were respondents before the Tribunal, have filed this appeal challenging engagement of Mr. Rishi Sood, Advocate legal representatives of the applicants as amicus curiae to assist the Tribunal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that Mr. Rishi Sood, Advocate being legal representatives of the applicants and since applications were not entertained, should not have been engaged as amicus curiae. It is further submitted that Mr. Rishi Sood, Advocate, being lawyer from Delhi whereas a lawyer from Mumbai should have been appointed as amicus curiae.
5. However, such submission cannot be accepted as it is open to th
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
e Court to appoint any lawyer or individual as amicus curiae for assistance of the Court/Tribunal. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, no relief can be granted. The appeal is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.