1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ORDER S.B. Company Application No.15374/2008 IN S.B. Company Appeal No. 3/2008 Smt. Yogeshwari Kumari vs. Lake Shore Palace & ors. Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Date of Order:- July 16,2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Vibhu Bakhru, Mrinal Kanti Mandal,Rahul Sharma, Snehasish Mukherjee, Anjay Kothari and Neeraj Jain for appellant-Applicant. Mr. S.N. Mookharjee, Sr. Advocate with Shri Arun Bhansali for respondent no.1. Mr. M.S. Singhvi and Mr. Ramit Mehta for respondent no.2. Mr. Vikas Balia for respondent No.3. Mr. Manish Shishodia for Mr. M.S. Kapoor. BY THE COURT: The petitioners in Company Appeal No.3/08 submitted Company Application No.15374/08 stating therein that during course of arguments of applications, the advocate for respondent raised objection that subsequently appointed Director of the Company Manmohan Singh Kapur is not party before this Court in this appeal and, therefore, to meet with this objection, the petitioners are seeking impleadment of said Manmohan Singh Kapur as party in this 2 appeal. In above application it has been contended by the petitioners that appellants moved an application on 4.9.2008 praying for restraining the respondent no.3 from acting as Director of respondent no.1-Company and for stay of the operation of resolution dated 31.3.2008 passed at Board meeting and by which appointed Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur as an Additional Director of respondent no.1- Company and for restraining Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur from acting as an Additional Director of respondent no.1- Company. That application was decided by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2008. This Court by order dated 21.10.2008 observed that the allegation made in the application appears to be quite vague and insufficient for grant of interim relief and there is no reason for restraining respondent no.3 from acting as Director of respondent- Company who was admittedly appointed as Director of the company with the consent,obviously of the petitioner herself. It is stated by the petitioner that during course of arguments. The learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 also objected that said Manmohan Singh Kapur is not party- respondent. Because of this reason, this application No.15374/08 has been submitted seeking permission of the court to implead Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur as party in this petition. Since this Court found no merit in the Company 3 Appeal No.3/2008 which is decided today and, therefore, no occasion arose for passing any order against said Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur before which only the notice to Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur could have been necessary. Therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed and hence dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. Mlt.