K.M. Thaker, J.

1. The applicant Bank has preferred summons dated 22.4.2013 seeking below mentioned relief:-

"(A) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records and proceedings and direct and order that the applicant State Bank of India Overseas Branch, Ahmedabad being a secured creditor be joined as a party respondent in Company petition No. 136 of 2011 as stated in the affidavit in support of this summons and be heard before any further order is passed in the Company petition."

1.1 The applicant Bank has filed affidavit in support of the above quoted relief made in the summons dated 22.4.2013. In the said affidavit in support of the summons, the applicant has averred, inter alia, that:-

"3. It is submitted that the account of respondent number 2 Company with the applicant Bank is overdue since 3/12/2011 and as on that day the dues of the applicant Bank have become payable as per the law and necessary guidelines issued by Authorities and has been classified as a non-performing asset. Accordingly the applicant Bank as a secured creditor and a first charge holder on all assets of the respondent No. 2 Company is entitled to first priority in repayment of its dues and accordingly will have priority over all unsecured creditors etc.

4. It is submitted that the present outstanding of the applicant Bank i.e. State Bank of India, Overseas Branch Ahmedabad is Rs. 229.63 Crores which excludes interest costs charges and expenses. If the up to date figure of interest, costs charges and expenses are added from the overdue date i.e. 3/12/11 the amount is likely to go up further substantially as the unapplied interest would also have to be added in accordance with law and practice and also guidelines. It is further submitted that apart from the applicant Bank there are other secured creditors and the total exposure for all secured lenders is about Rs. 2000/- crores excluding interest, cost, charges and expenses. It is further submitted that the total debt of the respondent 2 Company transpires to be around Rs. 3000/- crores."

On 1.8.2013, this Court heard Mr. Bhatt, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Desai, learned Advocate for the opponent No. 1, and Mr. Pahwa, learned Advocate for the opponent No. 2, at length as regards the request made by the applicant vide summons dated 22.4.2013.

2. What emerges from the summons and the affidavit is the fact that the opponent No. 2 Company owes huge amount-on having failed to repay loans to various Banks and financial institutions, including the opponent No. 1 herein which the Banks and financial institutions have extended by different modes like loan, cash credit facility/over draft, advance against stock, etc.

2.1. One of the creditors (i.e. UCO Bank who is opponent No. 1 in present application and is hereinafter referred to as "petitioner Bank") of the opponent No. 2 Company has filed a petition being Company Petition No. 136 of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "winding up petition") seeking order that the said Company may be wound up for the reasons mentioned in the said petition.

2.2. In the said winding-up petition, this applicant Bank wants to join as party respondent.

2.3. So far as the said winding-up petition, i.e. Company Petition No. 136 of 2011, is concerned, the petitioner - UCO Bank is dominus litis and as such, it has right and discretion to select opponent and not implead any particular party as opponent so long as any relief is not prayed for against such party and it is not necessary party and Court would not be justified in compelling - by issuing direction to the petitioner to implead present applicant or by allowing applicant's request to join - in the proceedings of Company petition/winding up petition, more so when the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Company Court Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") provide appropriate and specific as well as effective remedy - by way of Section 439 r.w. Sections 434 and 433 of the A