TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - WRIT PETITION No.172 OF 2021 (GM-RES) - - - Dated:- 12-2-2021 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR PETITIONER : (BY SHRI. R. SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE) [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] RESPONDENTS : (BY SHRI. S. GANESH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act on the basis of information given by him on March 14, 2017, January 30, 2020, November 9, 2020. 6. Shri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.5 argued that petitioner has approached Delhi High Court also in WP(C) No. 4905/2017 with a prayer inter alia to direct Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the RBI to take action on its complaints dated November 1, 2016, March 14, 2017 and April 28, 2017. By its order dated May 29, 2017, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court has disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to examine the complaints. Pursuant thereto, Ministry of Corporate Affairs has passed an order dated November 10, 2017. 7. Shri. Nagesh further submitted that petitioner has also filed a private complaint against the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs with a prayer to register an 'Information Report' on the basis of petitioner's three letters mentioned therein and to direct an investigation. He submitted that in the said private complaint, list of persons allegedly involved in the commission of offences ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January 18, 2020). In all these three cases, this Court has followed the principle laid down in Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P.Gwalior and others (1987) 1 SCC 5 . 14. Shri.Ganesh, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon two authorities. Adverting to Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008)1 SCC 560, he argued that repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt. Adverting to paragraph No.153 in Union of India and others Vs. Cipla Limited and another (2017)5 SCC 262, he submitted that the Apex Court has held that one of the category of forum shopping is approaching different Courts for the same relief by making minor changes in the prayer clause of the petition. 15. It is also relevant to note that the orders dismissing the three writ petitions filed by the petitioner after withdrawal of the PIL, were available well before hearing began in this case. This Court specifically brought this aspect to petitioner's notice. However, petitioner sought to argue the writ petition as if it was a stand alone writ petition and sought to make repeated and elabo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons for subscribing to the Memorandum. Accordingly, a private company can be incorporated and also owned by the stipulated number of companies registered under the subsisting Company Law. 3. At the time of consideration of the scheme, the transferee company (i.e M/s Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited) was having the following shareholders: a) Azim Premzi:-40,05,010 equity shares b) Yasmeen Premzi:- 5010 equity shares The scheme provided for merger of the three transferor companies to M/s. Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited which was fully owned by Mr.Azim Premzi and Yasmeen Premzi. This fact was reported by the ROC, Bangalore in his report to the Regional Director on 27.08.2014. Thus, no private trust was holding any shares of M/s.Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited at that point of time. 4. The brief for the ROC in respect of such scheme is to report to Regional Director if the companies under the scheme are facing any complaints, inspection, investigation and like as well as to provide observations if any, on the proposed schemes. In the instance case, the scheme is a Vanilla scheme with merger of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner under Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 to prosecute respondents No. 2 to 5. 19. But, to a pointed question by this Court as to when the alleged offences have taken place, Shri. Subramanian replied that they have taken place between 2010 and 2016-17. 20. Prayer Clause (a) in this writ petition is for a mandamus against Ministry of Corporate Affairs to act on the information in its representation/complaint dated March 14, 2017, January 30, 2020 and November 9, 2020 furnished by the petitioner. 21. In paragraph No.1 of its complaint dated March 14, 2017, petitioner has stated that 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., have net worth in excess of ₹ 40,000 Crores even though their Capital was small. 22. In paragraph No.5 of its complaint dated January 30, 2020, petitioner has stated that the said three Companies together with 100% owned subsidiaries are worth ₹ 50,000 Crores; that the three Companies were set out as part of promoter group of Wipro Ltd.; and neither Mr. Azim Premji or his family members had any equit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
