National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
Gp Capt Atul Jain vs Tripathi Hospital Pvt Ltd on 20 October, 2022
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 655 of 2020
&
I.A. No. 3714 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
Gp. Capt. Atul Jain ...Appellant
Versus
Tripathi Hospital Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
Present:
For Appellant : Gp. Capt. Atul Jain in person
For Respondent : Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Adarsh
Tripathi and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocates
Mr. Gagan Kr. Sharma, Ms. Meghna Butolia and Mr.
Ajitesh Garg, Advocates
ORDER
20.10.2022 I.A. No. 3714 of 2022 This application is filed to implead M/s Heritage Hospitals Limited R/o B-27/5, Ramesh Nagar, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi - 110015 as Respondent No.9 in the present Appeal. Reply to the Application has been filed.
2. Counsel appearing on behalf the applicant has submitted that the applicant has purchased the mortgaged property of Tripathi Hospital Pvt. Ltd. at NH 1A, Sector 119, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh - 201306 from the Union Bank of India in an online auction on 17.06.2022 and a Sale Certificate (Annexure A2) dated 15.09.2022 has been issued by the Union Bank of India after receiving the total sale consideration of Rs. 28.10 crores. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 655 of 2020 & I.A. No. 3714 of 2022 1 of 4
3. It is further submitted that an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') has been filed by Group Captain Atul Jain (Appellant). Which has been dismissed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Allahabad Bench vide its order dated 25.06.2020. The Appellant filed an application bearing I.A. No. 955 of 2020 for stay of sale of immovable property of Tripathi Hospital which was disposed of vide order dated 20.09.2022 with a direction that "status quo be maintained on the subject property in the instant matter till the next date of hearing".
4. It is submitted that the present application has been filed because Respondent No. 1 in the main appeal has no more interest in the property which has been purchased by the applicant and in case the applicant is not allowed to be impleaded as a party in these proceedings and any adverse order is passed against Respondent No.1 then it will directly effect the interest of the applicant as well because in that situation the application filed under Section 7 by the Non-applicant/Appellant, if admitted then the CIRP proceedings will be initiated presumably against the property in question of the Corporate Debtor which is now owned by the present applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is thus a necessary party.
5. On the other hand, the non-applicant / Appellant has vehemently argued that the applicant is not a necessary party because the dispute can be decided even in their absence. He has relied upon certain orders of this Tribunal in the matter of Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Lotus Three Developments Ltd. & Ors. dated 31.07.2018, Union Bank of India vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 20.05.2020 and Vekas Kumar Garg Vs. DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 655 of 2020 & I.A. No. 3714 of 2022 2 of 4 dated 18.02.2021 to contend that the impleadment of a party cannot be ordered as a routine, until and unless the said party is necessary to be present in the lis.
6. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The issue involved in this case as to whether the applicant, after lawfully purchasing the property of the Corporate Debtor, sold by the mortgagee bank in an open auction, is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings, which are initiated in terms of Section 7 of the Code?
8. It is needless to mention that the principle of impleadment of parties is drawn from Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC which provides that the Court may add or delete any party at any stage and has to see as to whether the said party is necessary or proper for the purpose of proper disposal of the litigation.
9. Since the only property of the Corporate Debtor mortgaged with Union Bank of India is purchased by the applicant in open auction in SARFAESI proceeding after paying a huge consideration of Rs.28.10 crores, the applicant in our considered opinion is a necessary party in the present litigation because in case of its absence, if any order is passed, while allowing this appeal, the interest of the applicant is going to be adversely affected.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application is allowed and the applicant is impleaded as respondent No.9. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the Memo of Parties.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 655 of 2020 & I.A. No. 3714 of 2022 3 of 4 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 655 of 2020
11. Since we have allowed the application bearing I.A. No. 3714 of 2022, filed by a separate order of today therefore, the Appellant herein is directed to provide a complete set of Memorandum of Appeal to Mr. Adarsh Tripathi, Advocate within a period of three days.
List again on 02nd November, 2022.
[Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial) [Mr. Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical) pks/rr Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 655 of 2020 & I.A. No. 3714 of 2022 4 of 4