1. The present application has been filed by the Applicant who is the Petitioner in the above CP, seeking a direction to implead the proposed parties 8 & 9 in this application as Respondents 8 & 9 in the above Company Petition.

2. Shri R. Murari, learned Counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner submitted that the above CP has been filed under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking a relief from oppression and mismanagement in relation to the affairs of the 1^st Respondent Company. He submits that in the Petition one of the issues raised in relation to certain mining rights granted to the 1^st Respondent Company, i.e. Transworld Garnet India Private Limited nearly 15,000 hectares of land in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 2^nd Respondent purported to give up its entitlement to mining rights over a substantial extent of such land at a meeting held on 05.01.2009. The Applicant sought for a relief in the above Company Petition restraining the 1^st Respondent Company from giving effect to the decisions purported to have been taken a; a meeting held on 05.01.2009. The Respondents filed a preliminary counter to the interim reliefs prayed for by the Applicant/Petitioner in which they have sought to justify the decision taken at the meeting held on 05.01.2009, inter alia, purporting to contend that by virtue of an order passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and in consultation with the 8^th Respondent herein, i.e. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation ("APMDC"), such decision was taken which is alleged to be in the best interests of the 1^st Respondent Company is wholly incorrect and untenable. Moreover, the decision taken at the meeting held on 05.01.2009 would be extremely detrimental to the 1^st Respondent Company and would affect the very basis on which the V.V. Minerals Group invested huge amounts to acquire shares in the 1^st Respondent Company. Since the meeting which was held on 05.01.2009 in the presence and at the office of the 9^th party herein, i.e. Secretary to Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the representatives of the 8^th party, i.e. APMDC were also present and party to the proceedings of the meeting, hence, it becomes necessary to implead the 8^th and 9^th parties as Respondents in order to enable this Bench to ascertain the real picture in relation to the proceedings of the meeting dated 05.01.2009 and the actions taken by the Respondents 1 & 2 herein.

3. Shri K. Harishankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5 filed counter to the CA. Shri A.L. Somayaji, learned Sr. Counsel leading the arguments on behalf of the above Respondents submitted that the above Application is not maintainable in law or on facts. He submitted that the above Company Petition filed by the Applicant/Petitioner in relation to the affairs of the 1^st Respondent Company. The Applicant and Respondents 2 & 3 are brothers and the 4^th and 5^th Respondents are the sons of the 2^nd Respondent, vis-a-vis, the 6^th and 7^th Respondents are the sons of 3^rd Respondent. Before adverting to the crux of the issue, the learned Senior Counsel appraised the facts in relation to the mines and minerals etc. He submitted that the mineral wealth underneath the earth is the property of the State and the mining leases are granted only in accordance with the mineral concessions Rules. The 1^st Respondent was the 1^st Applicant with respect to mining leases for many hectares of land in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Several of the mining lease applications of the 1^st Respondent Company were rejected by the State Government. The status of the 1^st Applicant gives the 1^st respondent Company a preferential right to be considered for the mining lease. The State Government for any special reasons to be recorded, grant mining lease to an Applicant whose application was received later in preference to an applicant whose application was received earlier. There is no certainty that the mining lease would be granted by