- 1 - 33.chs.592.11 s.234.11 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 592 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 234 OF 2011 IDBI Bank Limited ..Plaintiff -Versus- Choksi Tube Company Limited & Anr. ..Defendants -And- Reachwell KSM Properties Private Limited ..Applicant .......... Mr.Cyrus Ardeshir a/w. Mr.Darshan R. Mehta, Mrs.V.R.Hombalkar i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Plaintiff. Dr.Birendra Saraf a/w. Mr.Mahesh Patil, Mr.Kunal Damle i/b M/s.Udwadia & Udeshi for the Defendants. Mr.Satish Shah i/b Satyan S. Israni for the Applicant/Internvenor. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER 2011. P.C. 1 The applicant seeks to be impleaded in the suit and in the Notice of Motion on the ground that the order dated 28th February 2011 affects its rights and that the orders that may be passed subsequently may also affect its rights. The applicant’s rights arise inter-alia under an order of the Company Law Board dated 15th May 2008 in Company Petition No.22 of - 2 - 33.chs.592.11 s.234.11 2007 and under an order of the B.I.F.R. dated 8th June 2010. By the said orders, certain shares of the defendants have been ordered to be transferred in favour of the applicant. 2 Mr.Shah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant rightly states that the order dated 28th February 2011 is capable of being wrongly relied upon to contend that by virtue thereof, the orders of the C.L.B. and the B.I.F.R. cannot be implemented. 3 It is ordered that the said order dated 28th February 2011, shall not, in any manner, affect the rights of the applicant and the implementation of the order of the C.L.B. and the B.I.F.R. in any manner whatsoever. In other words, it will not open to any of the parties to the suit to contend that by virtue of the order dated 28th February 2011 the orders of the C.L.B. and the B.I.F.R. cannot be or ought not to be implemented. The plaintiff does not insist upon reasons for the same. The applicant not being a party, any orders in this suit including any orders that may hereafter be passed in this suit, cannot affect the rights of the applicant in any manner whatsoever. The plaintiff does not insist on reasons for this part of the order either. - 3 - 33.chs.592.11 s.234.11 4 If the orders of the C.L.B. and the B.I.F.R. are otherwise to be implemented, the above proceedings and any orders including interlocutory or final orders passed therein will not affect the applicant’s rights in any manner whatsoever. In this view of the matter, the grievance of the applicant is fully redressed. There is, therefore, no need to implead the applicant in this suit. 5 The apprehension that this order will have no effect on the official liquidator is unfounded. Firstly is a moot point as to whether the official liquidator stands appointed. In fact, the plaintiff and the defendants contend that the official liquidator does not stand appointed in respect of the defendants. Even if this contention is wrong, it would make no difference as in that event, the order dated 28th February 2011 would be non-est and cannot operate against the applicant. The apprehension that the official liquidator appointed by the Gujarat High Court, will not implement the orders of the C.L.B. and the B.I.F.R. is totally unfounded. Especially after this order, any such interference by the official liquidator, prima facie, would be in breach of this order. 6 Mr.Saraf states that an Appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 has been filed against the order of the Company Law Board and - 4 - 33.chs.592.11 s.234.11 a Writ Petition has been filed against the order of the B.I.F.R.. Mr.Shah states that the Appeal has been withdrawn. 7 With the above clarification and in view of the above reasons, it is not necessary to grant the reliefs claimed in the Chamber Summons. It is clarified that the rights and contentions of the parties including in the Writ Petition and the Appeal under Section 10F have not been considered. -