9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 64 - HC - Indian LawsWithdrawal of the captioned writ petition - pendency of the proceedings persuaded by the petitioners - HELD THAT - The order challenged on the ground that after hearing all the parties the matters were reserved for judgment vide order dated 19.01.2021 and thereafter the matters were not notified in the cause list published by the Tribunal for pronouncement. It is only when the petitioners received the email from Resolution Professional intimating the uploading of the order dated 01.03.2021, the petitioners came to know about the order. According to the petitioners, in absence of the listing of the matters for pronouncement of judgment, the pronouncement cannot be construed to be pronouncement in the realm of law. Clearly, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal only for the limited purpose of requesting for stay of the order pronounced for the interregnum period and to prefer an appeal by the aggrieved party. Accordingly, the Tribunal has listed the application and passed an order dated 29.10.2021 whereby, the request of the stay of order was acceded to and the order dated 01.03.2021, was kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks in order to enable the concerned parties to prefer appeal. The present writ petitions are nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioners to abuse the process of Court, relitigating the same subject matter - the petitions are disposed of as withdrawn.
Issues:
1. Withdrawal of writ petitions challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). 2. Validity of filing new writ petitions challenging the same order after agreeing to a previous court order. 3. Abuse of the legal process by re-litigating the same matter in court. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements and declaration of previous court actions. Analysis: Issue 1: Withdrawal of writ petitions challenging an order of the NCLT The petitioners, represented by their advocates, requested the withdrawal of their writ petitions challenging an order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the NCLT. They argued that the delay in filing an appeal should not result in their non-suit as the NCLT has the power to condone such delays under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petitioners sought withdrawal with certain observations regarding the pendency of the proceedings before the NCLT and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Issue 2: Validity of filing new writ petitions challenging the same order after agreeing to a previous court order The respondent strongly objected to the withdrawal of the writ petitions, arguing that the petitioners had already challenged the same order in earlier proceedings and had agreed to a court order dated 26.10.2021. The respondent contended that filing new writ petitions challenging the same order was an abuse of the legal process, forum shopping, and an attempt to delay the proceedings. The respondent urged the court to dismiss the petitions with exemplary costs. Issue 3: Abuse of the legal process by re-litigating the same matter in court The court observed that the present writ petitions were an attempt by the petitioners to re-litigate the same cause that was previously addressed in the earlier writ petition. The court deemed the filing of the new writ petitions as an abuse of the legal process, citing the principle that a writ remedy is an equitable one and must be approached with clean hands. The court referenced a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the importance of not abusing the legal process by filing repeated legal proceedings. Issue 4: Compliance with procedural requirements and declaration of previous court actions The court noted that the petitioners failed to provide the required declaration regarding any previous court actions related to the same matter, as mandated by the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993. Despite this procedural lapse, the court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petitions, imposing a cost of ?1 lakh each on the petitioners. The court directed the petitioners to deposit ?50,000 each with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and pay the remaining amount to the respondent. In conclusion, the court permitted the withdrawal of the writ petitions while imposing costs on the petitioners for abusing the legal process. The judgment highlighted the importance of not re-litigating the same matter in court and complying with procedural requirements.
|
