2020 (5) TMI 565 - HC - Companies Law

Principles of Res-Judicata - Maintainability of application - Winding up order - physical condition and status of the lands, over which the applicant claims a right - HELD THAT - It defies comprehension as to how, in the face of the order, dated 24th April, 2020, and the observations entered, by this Court, in para 7 thereof, the applicant could maintain yet another application, with the very same prayer, without curing the defects/defaults highlighted in para 7 of the said order. There is no question, here, of application of the principle of res judicata. The fact of the matter is that an application containing an identical relief, already stands dismissed, by this Court, on the ground that such prayers could not be urged without, in the first instance, placing specific facts, on affidavit, regarding the alleged construction activities, the exact nature thereof and the manner in which the applicant obtained knowledge. It is completely impermissible, in my view, for the second application, to be preferred, with the same prayers, again suffering from the same defects, i.e., in the absence of any assertion of facts, regarding the alleged construction activities, the exact nature thereof and the manner in which the applicant obtained knowledge. Allowing such an application would amount to allowing the applicant to indulge in forum shopping, which has, from time immemorial, been deprecated. Application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application.
2. Prayer for directing the Official Liquidator to place on record videos and pictures of the subject lands.
3. Prayer for directing the Official Liquidator to place on record a report of khasra/lands with security guards.
4. Prayer for directing the Official Liquidator to place on record seizure memo and other documents.
5. Costs imposed on the applicant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application:
The applicant filed a new application with similar prayers as in a previously dismissed application (CA 198/2020). The court noted that the previous application was dismissed due to the lack of specific facts asserted on affidavit regarding alleged construction activities. The court emphasized that without addressing the defects highlighted in the previous order, filing a new application with the same prayers is impermissible and amounts to forum shopping. The court referenced the judgment in *Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar And Others* to elucidate the principle that repeated applications based on identical facts and seeking the same reliefs are generally disallowed unless new facts are presented.

2. Prayer for Directing the Official Liquidator to Place on Record Videos and Pictures of the Subject Lands:
The applicant sought to have the Official Liquidator place on record videos and pictures of the subject lands to demonstrate their physical condition as of August 2019 or the present date. The court rejected this prayer, reiterating its previous stance that such a request cannot be granted without specific facts on affidavit regarding the alleged construction activities. The court described the application as a "fishing expedition" and deemed the prayers vague and abusive of the process of law.

3. Prayer for Directing the Official Liquidator to Place on Record a Report of Khasra/Lands with Security Guards:
The applicant requested a report detailing the khasra/lands where security guards were placed in August 2019. The court dismissed this prayer, stating that the applicant's concern is with the subject lands and not with other lands in the village. The court viewed this request as an attempt to obtain information indirectly that was not granted directly.

4. Prayer for Directing the Official Liquidator to Place on Record Seizure Memo and Other Documents:
The applicant also sought the seizure memo and other documents related to the subject lands from August 2019. The court found this prayer to be a follow-up to the rejected prayer (a) and thus dismissed it as well. The court reiterated that without specific facts, such prayers could not be entertained.

5. Costs Imposed on the Applicant:
The court dismissed the application with costs, conservatively computed at ?10,000. The amount is to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority and utilized for COVID relief and welfare measures. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

Conclusion:
The application was dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of specific facts and the repetitive nature of the prayers. The court emphasized the importance of presenting new facts to justify reconsideration and condemned the practice of forum shopping. The applicant was ordered to pay costs for abusing the process of law.

← Previous Next →