9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 1114 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - requirement of Non Banking Finance companies (NBFC) to take registration from RBI to conduct business - seeking directions to register the information of alleged cognizable offences committed under the Reserve Bank of India Act - withdrawal made by the petitioner of the PIL filed before this Court - principles of res judicata. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in view of the orders passed by the Delhi High Court as also withdrawal made by the petitioner of the PIL filed before this Court? - HELD THAT - In pursuance of the directions of the Delhi High Court in INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ORS 2017 (5) TMI 1757 - DELHI HIGH COURT has been passed by RBI - the releifs sought for by the petitioner in the PCR is for the RBI to take action against the Respondents 2 to 7 on the basis of the allegation that the Respondents 2 to 7 have violated Section 45-IA of the RBI Act the RBI having already considered the said request and passed an order according to RBI dated 05.09.2017 the reliefs sought for in the PCR cannot be granted as such the question of issuance of a certiorari to quash the order dismissing the PCR restoring the PCR and issuing directions to the RBI to consider the alleged offence would also not arise. The RBI having contended that the letter dated 05.09.2017 is an order the Petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. The present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the orders passed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court as also withdrawal made by the petitioner of the PIL filed before this Court as also the order passed by the RBI dated 05.09.2017. Whether the orders passed by the Delhi High Court as also the order of withdrawal passed by the Division Bench of this Court would amount to rejudicata? - HELD THAT - The order of the Delhi High Court was only a direction to the RBI to consider the complaints and pass an order. Such a direction not being one on merits cannot be termed to operate as resjudicata. For an order to operate as resjudicata it has to be passed on merits between the same parties - The order of the Hon ble Delhi High Court would not qualify to be that passed between the same parties since the parties in the present matter are different and as such the said order would not operate as rejudicata - thus the orders passed by the Delhi High Court as also the order of withdrawal passed by the Division Bench of this Court would not amount to rejudicata. The writ petition filed is an abuse of process of law and of this Court the same is not maintainable. The grievance of the petitioner has already been addressed by RBI by its order dated 5.09.2017 passed. If at all the petitioner has any grievance as regards the said order the petitioner is required to take adequate and necessary steps not by filing of proceedings by way of a private complaint before the Magistrate or by way of writ petition before this Court - Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the present writ petition. 2. Applicability of the principle of res judicata. 3. Appropriate order to be passed. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the present writ petition: The petitioner sought reliefs to set aside the order dated 28.07.2020 by the 41st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which dismissed the private complaint No. 7111/2020. The petitioner also requested a mandamus directing the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to register the alleged offences committed by respondents No. 2 to 7 under Section 45IA of the RBI Act. The petitioner argued that the RBI had failed to take action on their complaints. However, the respondents contended that the writ petition was not tenable as the issue had already been decided by the Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 4905/2017, where the petitioner sought similar reliefs. The Delhi High Court had directed the RBI to examine the complaints, and the RBI had subsequently passed an order on 05.09.2017 rejecting the petitioner's claims. Additionally, the petitioner had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Karnataka High Court, which was withdrawn unconditionally. The court held that the reliefs sought in the current writ petition were essentially the same as those sought before the Delhi High Court and in the PIL, making the present writ petition not maintainable. 2. Applicability of the principle of res judicata: The respondents argued that the principle of res judicata applied because the issues raised had already been decided by the Delhi High Court, and the petitioner had failed to challenge the RBI's order dated 05.09.2017. The court noted that for res judicata to apply, the order must be on merits between the same parties. The Delhi High Court's order was a direction to the RBI to consider the complaints and pass an order, not a decision on the merits. Therefore, the court held that the Delhi High Court's order did not operate as res judicata. However, the withdrawal of the PIL without liberty to file a fresh petition amounted to an abandonment of the claims, preventing the petitioner from re-agitating the same issues. 3. Appropriate order to be passed: The court concluded that the writ petition was an abuse of process of law and not maintainable. The petitioner's grievances had already been addressed by the RBI's order dated 05.09.2017. If the petitioner had any issues with that order, they needed to take appropriate steps, not by filing a private complaint before the Magistrate or a writ petition before the High Court. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, and emphasized that the petitioner could not re-agitate the same issues after withdrawing the PIL unconditionally. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was not maintainable due to the previous orders by the Delhi High Court and the unconditional withdrawal of the PIL. The petitioner was advised to challenge the RBI's order dated 05.09.2017 through appropriate legal means if they had any grievances.
|
