9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1113 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - assets removed from the companies - seeking constitution of Multi disciplinary investigation team to investigate the matter - violation of provisions of SEBI Act - HELD THAT - In Sarguja Transport Services 1986 (11) TMI 377 - SUPREME COURT it is held by the Apex Court that the principle underlying in Rule 1 of Order XXIII. of Code of Civil Procedure should be extended in the interest of administration of justice to the cazes of withdrawal of writ petition also not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy . It is further held that while the of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without permission. A careful perusal of the representations annexed to the PIL and this writ petition show that the grievance of the petitioner; is one and the same so far as violation of provisions of SEB Act and Regulations are concerned. Admittedly petitioner bas withdrawn the PIL unconditionally. Therefore this writ petition cannot be entertained in view of law laid down in Sarguja Transport Service. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition based on the principle of res judicata. Detailed Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Karnataka involved a preliminary objection raised by the respondent's counsel regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondent contended that the petitioner had previously filed a public interest litigation (PIL) with similar prayers and subsequently unconditionally withdrawn it. The respondent argued that the prayers in both the PIL and the current writ petition were essentially the same, particularly concerning the investigation by the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The respondent relied on the principle of res judicata to assert that the current writ petition cannot be entertained due to the withdrawal of the PIL. In response, the petitioner's counsel argued that the prayers in the PIL and the writ petition were different, emphasizing the alleged violations of SEBI regulations in the transactions brought to the notice of SEBI. The petitioner maintained that the violations attracted penal provisions and asserted the right to maintain the writ petition independently. The court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the records of the case. The court noted that the petitioner's grievances primarily revolved around transactions occurring between 2010 and 2015, which the petitioner claimed violated SEBI regulations. The court observed that the prayers in the PIL and the writ petition overlapped significantly, particularly concerning the investigation and prosecution of the alleged offenses by SEBI. The court highlighted that the petitioner had unconditionally withdrawn the PIL, leading to the application of the principle of res judicata. The court referenced the legal precedent set in Sarguja Transport Services, emphasizing that the withdrawal of a writ petition without permission could be deemed as abandonment of the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court distinguished the current case from the authority cited by the petitioner's counsel, noting that the petitioner was not challenging any criminal proceedings but seeking a mandamus against SEBI to investigate. The court concluded that the petitioner, having withdrawn the PIL, could not re-agitate the same cause in the writ petition. Therefore, the court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondent's counsel, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition. In summary, the High Court of Karnataka's judgment focused on the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the principle of res judicata. The court analyzed the similarities between the prayers in the withdrawn PIL and the current writ petition, ultimately concluding that the withdrawal of the PIL precluded the petitioner from pursuing the same cause in the writ petition. The court's decision was based on legal precedents and a thorough examination of the facts and arguments presented by both parties.
|
