GILLETTE INTERNATIONAL Vs. R K MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The law as regards impleadment of a party has now been settled by a long catena of cases resting with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji & Others, 1996(5) SCC 379 wherein the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms observed that where the presence of the respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no relief is sought, he is a proper party.

(2.) Turning attention on to the contextual facts, be it noted that in an application under sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 for relief against oppression, the Company Law Board on a petition filed by the applicant impleaded Gillette International. The order was passed ex parte and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the impleaded party. The contextual facts depict that a recalling application was moved before the Company Law Board and upon hearing, however, the order of impleadment was set aside and subsequently notices were served and the impleadment application was re-heard by the Company Law Board at great length in the presence of Gillette International and the Company Law Board by its order dated 19th February, 1997 passed an order to the following effect :-

(3.) It is this order which is under challenge before this court under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 being a special provision authorising appeals against the orders of the Company Law Board. For convenience's sake, section 10F is set out hereinbelow :-