9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 914 - HC - Companies LawPIL - Seeking for a direction against respondents No. 1 to 10 therein to forthwith constitute a Multi- Disciplinary Investigation Team to investigate and prosecute respondent No.11 therein (Mr. A.H. Premji and his Associates) based on the representations dated January 30 2020 and February 3 2020 submitted by the petitioner - HELD THAT - In the PIL filed before the Delhi High Court petitioner has prayed for a direction against the Ministry of Finance Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Reserve Bank of India to decide within four weeks that nature of actions required in law to be taken by them in respect of complaints dated November 1 2016 March 14 2017 and April 28 2017. In paragraph No.14 of the said writ petition petitioner has averred that the very same three Companies namely Vidya Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Regal Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and Napean Trading and Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. were registered as non-Banking Finance Companies. In paragraph No.29 of the said writ petition petitioner has averred that the said three Companies had given large sums of monies to a Private Trust. It is important to note that petitioner s complaint dated March 14 2017 upon which petitioner has relied is common in the PIL filed before the Delhi High Court and this writ petition - thus there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action. As held in Udyami2 this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same. This writ petition is not only devoid of merits but an absolute abuse of process of law. Though petitioner was forewarned he chose to argue this writ petition as a stand-alone petition wasting the valuable time of this Court to deal with such frivolous cases. Therefore imposition of punitive cost is necessary - Petition dismissed with cost.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition. 2. Allegations of forum shopping. 3. Doctrine of res judicata. 4. Previous judgments and their implications. 5. Examination of complaints by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. 6. Imposition of punitive costs. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The court addressed the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It was argued that the petitioner had previously filed a public interest litigation (PIL) with similar prayers, which was unconditionally withdrawn. Following this, the petitioner filed multiple writ petitions against various statutory authorities, all of which were dismissed. The court noted that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, a respondent in the PIL, was also a respondent in the current writ petition, thereby questioning the maintainability of the petition. 2. Allegations of Forum Shopping: The respondents contended that the petitioner was engaging in forum shopping by filing multiple writ petitions in different courts for the same relief, making minor changes in the prayer clause. The court referred to the principle laid down in "Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others" and "Union of India and others Vs. Cipla Limited and another," which held that repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt and is a form of forum shopping. 3. Doctrine of Res Judicata: The petitioner argued that the relief sought in the PIL and the current writ petition were not identical, and therefore, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply. The court, however, found that the core issues and the cause of action in both the PIL and the writ petition were essentially the same, involving the same set of companies and allegations. 4. Previous Judgments and Their Implications: The court highlighted that it had previously dismissed writ petitions filed by the petitioner against SEBI, the Enforcement Directorate, and the Reserve Bank of India, following the principle laid down in "Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and others." The court emphasized that these orders were available to the petitioner before the hearing of the current case, yet the petitioner chose to proceed, wasting the court's valuable time. 5. Examination of Complaints by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs: The court noted that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs had already examined the complaints raised by the petitioner and issued a detailed order on November 10, 2017. The order addressed the issues related to the merger of the companies and concluded that there were no grounds for negative observations or to seek annulment/revocation of the approved merger. 6. Imposition of Punitive Costs: Given the repetitive and frivolous nature of the petitions, the court deemed it necessary to impose punitive costs. The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits and an absolute abuse of the process of law, imposing a cost of ?10,00,000/- on the petitioner, payable to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru within four weeks. Conclusion: The court sustained the preliminary objections raised by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition with costs, highlighting the petitioner's engagement in forum shopping and abuse of the process of law. The court's decision underscores the importance of judicial efficiency and the discouragement of frivolous litigation.
|
