Manyata Infrastructure Developments Private Limited Vs Buoyant Technology Constellation Private Limited (NCLT Bengaluru)
The Bengaluru Bench of the NCLT allowed Company Application 37/2026 seeking impleadment of M/s. Manyata Reality, a registered partnership firm, as Petitioner No. 2 in Company Petition No. 121/2025. The main petition had been filed under Section 213(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking investigation into the affairs of Respondent No. 1 Company over allegations of fraudulent diversion of funds, misuse of land parcels and other acts connected with a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 23.12.2009.
The applicant stated that Respondent No. 1 had approached the petitioner and other landowners, who subsequently formed M/s. Manyata Reality, for development of their lands. The MoU was executed between Respondent No. 1, the petitioner and other landowners, including the proposed Petitioner No. 2, and was stated to be the umbrella agreement pursuant to which several Joint Development Agreements were subsequently executed. The applicant submitted that Manyata Reality was directly affected by the alleged acts and omissions concerning the lands covered by the MoU and that its presence was necessary for complete and effective adjudication.
The application was filed after Respondent No. 2 questioned the locus standi of the existing petitioner. Respondent No. 2 opposed impleadment, contending that the application was an afterthought intended to cure an alleged defect in maintainability. It was also argued that Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 were procedural provisions and could not overcome substantive defects relating to locus standi. Further objections concerned the absence of separate notice, authorization or resolution from the proposed Petitioner No. 2.
