U.C.Banerjee, J. - (1.) The law as regards impleadment of a party has now been settled by a long catena of cases resting with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji & Others, 1996(5) SCC 379 wherein the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms observed that where the presence of the respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no relief is sought, he is a proper party.
(2.) Turning attention on to the contextual facts, be it noted that in an application under sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 for relief against oppression, the Company Law Board on a petition filed by the applicant impleaded Gillette International. The order was passed ex parte and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the impleaded party. The contextual facts depict that a recalling application was moved before the Company Law Board and upon hearing, however, the order of impleadment was set aside and subsequently notices were served and the impleadment application was re-heard by the Company Law Board at great length in the presence of Gillette International and the Company Law Board by its order dated 19th February, 1997 passed an order to the following effect :- "We consider it necessary that M/s. Gillette should be impleaded as a party. Since a copy of the amended portion of the petition has been already served on M/s. Gillette, they may file their reply to this portion relating to technology by 30th April, 1997 and rejoinder if any, may be filed by 31st May, 1997. In the meanwhile the petition will continue to be heard on dates already fixed. Ordered accordingly."
(3.) It is this order which is under challenge before this court under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 being a special provision authorising appeals against the orders of the Company Law Board. For convenience's sake, section 10F is set out hereinbelow :- "Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Company Law Board to him on any question of law arising out of such order : Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days." This narration of section 10F has been effected by reason of a specific plea taken by the respondent as regards the existence of a question of law as noted in the statute itself. Be it recorded that the statute itself is clear and categorical to the effect that it is only a question of law from which an appeal is available to a party against the order of the Company Law Board. Before, however, dealing with the issue as to the question of law, certain factual details ought to be noted at this juncture.;