JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---By this application, the applicant-company prays that it be permitted to intervene and to file affidavits and be heard at the admission and at every stage of the petition and in all proceedings concerning thereto. The basis on which intervention is sought is that the applicant-company has vital interest in the affairs of the C M Hy-Line Farms Pvt. Ltd., which is proposed to be wound up by Company Petition No. 158 of 2003 on the ground purported to be under section 433(e) and 433(f) of the Companies Act. According to the applicant, the applicant-company is share holder of the said company and is also a Joint Venture Partner along with the petitioner. Besides, the applicant company is creditor as well as guarantor of the company proposed to be wound up. It is, therefore, asserted that the applicant company has vital interest in the proceedings and any order passed in these proceedings may prejudice the applicant. Besides, it is asserted that the present company petition is not a bona fide petition for the reasons set out in the affidavit. On the above contentions, it is prayed that the applicant be permitted to intervene in the Company Petition No. 158 of 2003 and file pleadings and make oral arguments at the time of hearing at every stage of the petition.

2. No reply has been filed opposing this application. In that sense, the averments regarding facts so as to justify the intervention of the applicant, have gone uncontroverted. However, Mr. Sathe, learned Counsel for the petitioner has opposed this application. According to him, the applicant has no locus to pray that the applicant company be permitted to intervene in the company petition. He submits that if at all the applicant company is to be heard, that would be only at the stage of final hearing of the company petition and not at this stage; because, at this stage the Court is only concerned with the issue as to whether the claim set up by the petitioner regarding the liability or debt of the company is established and whether the defence taken by the company for non-payment of its liability is bona fide or whether the company is in a position to pay the liability. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on these aspects, the applicant company cannot be heard so as to oppose the petition as filed. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. page 75 in the case of (National Textile Workers' Union etc. v. P.R. Ramkrishnan and others)1, to buttress the above argument.

3. On the other hand, Counsel for the applicant company submits that the objection taken on behalf of the petitioner is entirely misplaced. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of (Smt. Keerat Kaur and others v. Patiala Exhibition Pvt. Ltd.)2, reported in Vol. 70 Comp.Cas. page 728 and another unreported decision of this Court in Company Application No. 352 of 2003 and companion matters decided on 28th November, 2003 in the case of (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. National Organic Chemical Industries Limited)3.

4. Having considered the rival submissions, to my mind, there is no substance in the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the locus of the applicant company to intervene in the company petition. The decision pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner in the case of National Textile Workers (supra) is of no avail. In that case, the issue considered by the Court was relating to the right of workmen employed in a company to appear and oppose a petition for winding up of the company. That authority cannot be pressed into service to support the statement of law as is canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the workers or any other interested person such as the applicant cannot be heard or allowed to intervene at the stage of admission of the petition. On the other hand, the question that arises for my consideration is squarely

Click Here to Read the rest of this document