# In the matter of Inkel Limited vs. Shaji Mathew & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-07-24. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00306. The case involves an appeal against an order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT),…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 24 Jul 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00306
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/inkel-limited-vs-shaji-mathew-ors-5ab2b31f

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against an order by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench, which directed the appellant, Inkel Limited, to be impleaded in CIRP proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the I&B Code against Seguro Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd. The appellant contends that it was impleaded as an additional corporate debtor without prior notice, violating principles of natural justice. The CIRP proceedings were initiated by Shaji Mathew, an operational creditor, against Seguro Foundations, which the appellant claims is one of its subsidiaries. The NCLT order was based on the appellant's major shareholding (65%) and managerial control over Seguro Foundations.

## Facts

Inkel Limited, the appellant, holds a 65% share in Seguro Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd., the corporate debtor and Respondent No. 2. Shaji Mathew, Respondent No. 1, initiated CIRP against Seguro Foundations under Section 9 of the I&B Code. The NCLT, Kochi Bench, passed an order on 2020-11-26 in IA No.187/KOB/2020 impleading Inkel Limited as an additional corporate debtor. Inkel Limited was not given prior notice before being impleaded. Inkel Limited contends that Seguro Foundations is its subsidiary and that it was forced to invest in the company due to heavy losses caused by the erstwhile Managing Director, Mr. Rajeev C Vijayan. Inkel Limited initiated criminal and arbitration proceedings against Mr. Vijayan. The NCLT relied on the case of Mamatha Vs AMB

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the NCLT erred in impleading Inkel Limited as an additional corporate debtor without prior …

**Ratio:** The principle derived from Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the objective of impleadment is to ensure the presence of all

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of Order I, Rule 10 of CPC and relevant case laws suggests

…

**Application:** In this case, the court applied the principle that prior notice is not

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Jatindranat…
- **Appellants:** Inkel Li…
- **Respondents:** Seguro Foundations…; Shaji M…
- **Advocates:** Aditya Venu…; Harikumar.…

## Timeline

- **2020-11-26 — Impugned…**: NCLT, Kochi Bench, passed an order in IA No.187/KOB/2020 impleading Inkel Limited as an…
- **2020-12-03 — Notice Re…**: Inkel Limited received…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 9 — Application for initiation of corporate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-9)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/inkel-limited-vs-shaji-mathew-ors-5ab2b31f