TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst whom the petitioner has pending disputes. Writ jurisdiction is meant to safeguard the constitutional, legal and vested rights of a party. The powers vested with this Court under writ jurisdiction are large that are used by this Court to ensure that the constitutional and legal rights of parties are protected and secured - The Court process, much less a writ jurisdiction, cannot be used as a fishing and roving enquiry against a party with whom the petitioner has pending disputes, for the purposes of collecting evidence and documents to be used against such a party. The present petition filed by the petitioner is clearly a misuse and abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner is trying to collect evidence and documents against IBREL, as is manifest from the representation dated 18th August, 2023 submitted by the petitioner to NHB. Neither any constitutional nor any legal right of the petitioner is being violated or breached, for protection of which the present petition has been filed. This Court will not become a party in a fact finding and evidence collecting process in order to aid the petitioner, which is the manifest purpose of filing the present petition. The present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up of companies, raises serious concerns, which require to be closely scrutinized by the NHB. The amounts were disbursed to Embassy Group of companies by creating charges on land owned by a statutory authority in a fraudulent manner. 5. Thus, it is prayed that directions be issued to the NHB to consider and decide upon the petitioner s representation. 6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, at the outset, it would be useful to refer to the representation dated 18th August, 2023 submitted by the petitioner, relevant portions of which are extracted as below: xxx xxx xxx 2. I am a minority shareholder of Indiabulls Real Estate Ltd. (IBREL) and while examining the scheme of amalgamation between Embassy group and IBREL, I found material information of the fraudulent sanction and disbursement of loans by Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (IBHFL) to Embassy Group. I had made detailed representations to SEBI seeking disclosures and also move an application for impleadment before the Hon ble NCLT, Chandigarh in C.P. (CAA) No.14/Chd./Hry/2022. SEBI Vide its Order dated 15th December 2021, observed that separate disclosures were not made in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Law Tribunal ( NCLT ), Chandigarh, wherein the petitioner had moved an application for his impleadment. 8. Further, it is manifest from the aforesaid representation that the purpose of the representation by the petitioner before the NHB is to collect relevant information so that the petitioner can apprise the same to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ), New Delhi, which is considering the appeal of IBREL against an order passed by NCLT, Chandigarh. After collecting such information from the NHB by way of the aforesaid representation, the petitioner intends to file an appropriate intervention application/appeal before the NCLAT, New Delhi. 9. This Court also notes that the petitioner had earlier approached NCLT, Chandigarh, where in the order dated 9th May, 2023, it was held as follows: xxx xxx xxx 10.1.5 The Applicant, i.e. Tejo Ratna Kongara, has filed another application bearing CA No. 29/2023 to permit the Applicant to obtain the reports filed by the Income Tax Department in Diary No. 259 dated 04.07.2022 and Diary No. 293/7 dated 05.05.202212, supplementary reports vide Diary No. 293/8 dated 08.09.2022 and Diary No. 293/12 dated 17.11.2022. 11. As regards the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th IBREL and seeks to collect information and documents through the process of the present petition, so as to use the same to file intervention application before NCLAT, New Delhi in the appeal filed by IBREL against the order dated 9th May, 2023 passed by NCLT, Chandigarh, or to file a separate appeal himself against the order dated 9th May, 2023 passed by NCLT, Chandigarh. 11. Writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be used by a party for collecting evidence and documents against another party, against whom the petitioner has pending disputes. Writ jurisdiction is meant to safeguard the constitutional, legal and vested rights of a party. The powers vested with this Court under writ jurisdiction are large that are used by this Court to ensure that the constitutional and legal rights of parties are protected and secured. Thus, explaining the contours of writ jurisdiction of a High Court, Supreme Court in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha Versus Union of India and Others, (1984) 3 SCC 161, has held as follows: xxx xxx xxx 15. We may point out that what we have said above in regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court under Article 32 must apply equally in relation to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roving enquiry is called for or justified within the scope of judicial review with reference to the private rights of an individual. Yet again in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh (2008) 4 SCC 619 the Apex Court held that it is not for the High Court to, at the instance of unsuccessful candidates, place itself into a position of fact finding commission and to commence a roving enquiry. Reference may also be made to Ratan Chandra Sammanta v. UOI 1993 Supp (4) SCC 67 reiterating that a writ is issued in favour of a person who has some right and not for the sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for manoeuvring; it was further held that where neither steps to enforce claim are taken except sending vague representations nor any material produced before the Court, it would be too dangerous to accept a plea, as here, to call upon the respondents to produce their records. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis Supplied) 14. Similarly, holding that Court cannot be used as a tool to create evidence, in the case of Rajinder Singh Versus Ran Singh and Others, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 889, it has been held as follows: xxx xxx xxx 10. In my considered view, in the present case, but obvious, onus is on the plaintiff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
