Dismissed

India Awake for Transparency v. Mr Azim Hasham Premji

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021WA/115/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench held that a writ appeal against an order declining interim relief in an Article 226+482 Cr.P.C. petition is not maintainable, relying on recent Supreme Court dismissal. The court further dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process due to the petitioner's history of frivolous litigation regarding company amalgamations and imposed exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000 and ban on future proceedings regarding the amalgamation.

India Awake for Transparency Vs Mr Azim… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.115 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY REP. BY P. SADANAND, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SHRISTHI CRESCENDO, 24 DESIKA ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600004.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANIAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR. AZIM HASHAM PREMJI SURVEY NO.75, 133, 135/1, 136/1, NO.574, DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560035.

¶15

MRS. YASEEM AZIM PREMJI SURVEY NO.574, DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560035.

¶16

MR. PAGALTHIVARTHI SRINIVASAN NO.524, 16^TH CROSS,

¶17

¶18

INDIRA NAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU-560038.

¶19

M/S HASHAM INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD., REP. BY MR. AZIM H PREMJI, DIRECTOR, NO.134, NEXT TO WIPRO CORPORATE OFFICE, DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560035.

¶20

APEX TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE AZIM PREMJI TRUST SERVICES P. LTD., NO.574, NEXT TO WIPRO CORPORATE OFFICE, DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560035.

¶21

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶22

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶23

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, CABINET SECRETARIAT, RAISINA HILL, NEW DELHI-110001. … RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. S.GANESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANDEEP HILGOL, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGSC FOR R6 TO R8)

¶25

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.10.2020 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 11026/2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2020 OF THE SPECIAL COURT AND RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS-1 TO 5 FROM DEALING WITH THE PROPERTIES SET OUT IN SCHEDULE TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The appellant before this Court has filed the present writ appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2020 passed in W.P. No.11026/2020 by the learned Single Judge.

¶30

The facts of the case reveal that a petition was preferred by the appellant herein, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) praying various reliefs.

¶31

The facts also reveal that in respect of a complaint case which is pending before Special Court of

¶32

¶33

the year 2018, an application was made for attachment of certain properties and the learned Trial Court has dismissed those applications. The Trial Court by an order dated 10.09.2020 dismissed the applications and in those circumstances a petition was preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Undisputedly, the order which was challenged before the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2020 was arising out of a criminal case.

¶34

The learned Single though has issued notices, however has declined to grant ad interim relief and the matter is still pending before the learned Single Judge. The order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as under :

¶35

"Sri Subramanian R., learned counsel for the petitioner requests for urgent hearing in the matter keeping pending the compliance of office objection. Pending such compliance, the matter is taken up for hearing at the request of Sri. Subramanian R. Three weeks time is granted to comply with office objections.

¶36

¶37

The above petition has been filed seeking for a declaration that the provision of Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 are not attracted to the attachment sought to be effected by the Special Court under Section 18(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and consequently quashing the order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Special Court in original application for attachment in Spl.Case No.69/2020 wherein the said Court held that the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 is applicable. As an interim relief, the petitioner has sought for the order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the Special Court as also by injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from dealing with any of the assets including income derived from such assets and other reliefs.

¶38

Having heard Sri. Subramanian.R., learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that there is no prima facie case which could be said to have been made out establishing that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have committed any offence. More so from the transfer of properties in favour of respondent No.4 is by virtue of this Court order allowing amalgamation of Companies.

¶39

Issue notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by speed post/RPAD showing the next date of hearing as 19.11.2020.

¶40

¶41

Sri. A. Shashikanth, learned Assistant Solicitor General is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.6 to 8. Re-list on 19.11.2020."

¶42

This High Court in large number of cases from

¶43

time to time has arrived at a conclusion that no writ appeal is maintainable in case an order is passed in a writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and therefore, it appears that the present petitioner has initially preferred a Special Leave Petition and an order dated 18.12.2000

¶44

( Azim Hasham Premji & Another v. India Awake for Transparency & Others ) was passed, which was an order passed in all connected matters. The Order dated 18.12.2020 reveals that the S.L.P. preferred by the present petitioner i.e., SLP (Crl) No.5849/2020 was dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the impugned order is in the nature of an interim order issuing notice and declining interim relief, and therefore, it

¶45

¶46

does not warrant any interference. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under :

¶47

" Applications for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment, exemption from filing official translation, exemption from filing notarized affidavit, permission to file additional documents and exemption from filing affidavit are allowed.

¶48

Issue notice.

¶49

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant in all matters accepts notice.

¶50

In the meantime, in all the matters there shall be stay of the proceedings before the trial Court.

¶51

SLP(Crl) No. 5849/2020

¶52

The impugned order being in the nature of an interim order issuing notice and declining interim relief, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶53

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of."

¶54

After dismissal of the SLP wisdom prevailed

¶55

upon the present petitioner and he has preferred a writ appeal before this Court.

¶56

¶57

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Ganesh along with Sri Sandeep Huilgol has objected regarding maintainability of present writ appeal. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of petitioner himself i.e., W.A. No.224/2021 C/w. W.A. No.242/2021 which was again a writ appeal arising out of a petition preferred under Article 226 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The operative portion of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case reads as under :

¶58

"25. On a detailed consideration of the prayers sought by the petitioners and the manner of consideration of the said prayers by the learned single Judge, we are of the view that the learned single Judge exercised Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and not under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, while placing reliance on the judgment of Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Swamiji , we hold that the intra-Court appeals filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act are not maintainable. In the said case, a Coordinate Bench has clearly held that notwithstanding the nomenclature, as one filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if the same was actually one filed under

¶59

¶60

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned single Judge had treated the same and decided the petition under that provision only, writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is not maintainable. The office objection is sustained."

¶61

The Division Bench has taken into

¶62

consideration the cases decided by this Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the writ appeals.

¶63

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents has also vehemently argued before this Court against an order passed by this Court in a petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the only remedy available is only to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner has abused the process of law by filing the present writ appeal even though his SLP has been dismissed.

¶64

10. Sri Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Kunhayammed And Others v.

¶65

¶66

State of Kerala and Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC

¶67

359.

¶68

In the considered opinion of this Court the facts of the aforesaid cases are distinguishable. In the present case the Hon'ble Supreme Court after looking into the nature of the order impugned in SLP has arrived at a conclusion that the learned Single Judge has declined to grant interim relief, and in those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the judgment relied upon is of no help to the petitioner. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of

¶69

Gurushanth Pattedar vs. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga

¶70

Mills and Another reported in ILR 2005 KAR 2503. He has placed heavy reliance upon paragraph 6, which reads as under :

¶71

"6. The question that has arisen before us had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in KALPANA THEATRE V. B.S. RAVISHANKAR MAJOR AND OTHERS, AIR 1995 KAR 426 wherein G.T. Nanavati, C.J. after

¶72

¶73

examining various judgments of the Supreme Court held as under:

¶74

"8. If Section 4 of the Act is examined in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it becomes apparent that Section 4 does not provide an appeal against the judgment or order passed by a single Judge of this Court in a petition under Article 227 and that an appeal will lie only if a judgment or order is passed in a petition under Article 226. Where a petition is filed both under Articles 226 and 227, it will have to be considered whether the points raised in the petition arose for adjudication for the first time before the High Court. If the challenge in the petition is with respect to the points already adjudicated upon the subordinate court or Tribunal, then it will have to be held that supervisory jurisdiction of High Court was invoked and not the original. The relief prayed for and granted by the Court is also a factor that would indicate whether the petition was filed under Article 226 or Article 227. In cases where it can be said that the petition would fall both under Article 226 and Article 227 then it would be proper to consider the petition as the one filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶75

¶76

and in those cases, an appeal would lie to a Bench of two Judges under Section 4 of the Act".

¶77

The correctness of this Division Bench decision was doubted and the matter was referred to a Full Bench of three Judges in Ritz Hotels case (supra). The question whether an appeal lay against an order of a learned single Judge passed under Article 227 of the Constitution was again considered by the Full Bench in Ritz Hotels case (supra) and Chief Justice R.P. Sethi, speaking for the Bench observed that the law laid down in Kalpana Theatre's case (supra) was contrary to the settled position of law and overruled the same. It was observed that the learned Judges in Kalpana Theatre's case (supra) had not noticed the effect of the amendment of the Act by Amending Act 12 of 1973 whereby the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act had been amended. It was further observed that the provisions of Rules 2 and 26 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 had also not been taken note of. The Full Bench in Ritz Hotels case while over ruling the Division Bench judgment in Kalpana Theatre's case held as under:

¶78

"The scope of Section 4 of the Act in the context of the other provisions of law and particularly the amendment made by Amendment Act 12 of 1973 is admittedly

¶79

¶80

wider than letters patent or the Acts of the other States which were referred to or relied upon by the Division Bench in Kalpana Theatre's case, supra. In our opinion, the law laid down in Kalpana Threatre's case, supra, being contrary to the settled position of law is liable to be over ruled. We hold that an appeal against an order passed by a single Judge in a proceeding arising out of a petition filed under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. The reference is answered accordingly".

¶81

With respect to the learned Judges of the Full Bench who decided Ritz Hotels case (supra), we are of the view that the amendment of the Act by Act No. 12 of 1973 made no difference to the maintainability of an appeal under Section 4 of the Act. At this stage it may be relevant to make a reference to the amendments brought about in Sections 9 and 10 of the Act by Act 12 of 1973. Clause (xii) was added in Section 9 of the Act which prescribes the matters in relation to which the powers of the High Court are to be exercised by a single Judge. This clause reads as under:

¶82

"Other powers of a single Judge-The powers of the High Court in relations to the

¶83

¶84

following matters shall be exercised by a single Judge, provided that the Judge before whom the matter is posted for hearing may adjourn it for being heard and determined by a Bench of two Judges(i) ..............

¶85

(xii) exercise of powers under -

¶86

(a) Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India except where such power relates to the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus; and

¶87

(b) Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India".

¶88

Similarly Clause (iv) and (iv-a) were added in Section 10 of the Act replacing the old Clause (iv). Section 10 deals with those matters in relation to which powers of the High Court are exercised by a Bench of two Judges. Clauses (iv) and (iv-a) introduced in the year 1973 read as under:

¶89

"10. Other powers of a Bench of two Judges:-The powers of the High Court in relation to the following matters shall be exercised by a Bench of two Judges(i).................

¶90

(iv) exercise of powers under Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶91

¶92

where such power relates to the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus;

¶93

(iv-a) an appeal from any original judgment, order or decree passed by a single Judge in exercise of the powers under Clause (1) of Article 226, Article 227 and Article 228 of the Constitution of India".

¶94

As already noticed earlier, Section 4 is the only provision in the Act which provides for an appeal. Section 9 of the Act specifies the matters in regard to which the powers of the High Court shall be exercised by a single Judge whereas Section 10 refers to those matters in regard to which powers of the High Court are exercised by a Bench of two Judges. Prior to the amendment of the Act in the year 1973 Clause (iv) of Section 10 provided that petitions for the exercise of powers under Clause (1) of Article 226, Article 227 and Article 228 of the Constitution would be dealt with by a Bench of two Judges. After the amendment all petitions under Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution other than a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and petitions under Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution are required to be dealt with by a single Judge and the objects and reasons of the Amending Act do suggest that the Legislature wanted such petitions to be dealt with by a single Judge with a

¶95

¶96

right of appeal to a Bench of two Judges. The learned Judges in Ritz Hotels case (supra) relied upon the statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act to hold that an appeal lay against an order of a single Judge passed in a petition under Article 227. We do not think that was the right approach. The Legislature may have intended to provide for a right of appeal but in its wisdom did not amend Section 4 of the Act which is the only provision providing for a right of appeal and this section continues to provide for an appeal against the decision of a single Judge only in the exercise of his original jurisdiction. By amending Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, the Legislature has brought petitions under Clause (1) of Article 226 other than a petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and applications under Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution to be heard by a single Judge but the right of appeal continues to be available only in the case of orders passed by a learned single Judge in the exercise of his original jurisdiction, that is, under Article 226. The amendment to Section 10 has made no difference because this Section does not provide for a right of appeal. It was open to the Legislature to provide for a right of appeal even against an order passed by a learned single Judge in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and in that event Section 4 has to be amended accordingly. Since no such amendment has

¶97

¶98

been made in Section 4, the right of appeal in the case of an order passed by a learned single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be inferred. Whether such a right of appeal exists or not will have to be seen from the language used in Section 4 of the Act. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that the language employed in a provision determines the intention of the Legislature.

¶99

In KANAI LAL SUR V. PARAMNIDHI SADHUKHAN, AIR 1957 SC 907 Justice Gajendragadkar (as his Lordship then was) observed that, "the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself. If the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such hypothetical construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act". In ROBERT WIGRAM CRAWFORD V. RICHARD SPOONER, 4 MIA 179 AT PAGE 187 The Privy Council observed as under:

¶100

"The Construction of the Act must be taken from the bare words of the Act. We cannot fish out what possibly may have been the intention of the Legislature; ................... If the Legislature did intend that which it has not expressed clearly; much more, if

¶101

¶102

the Legislature intended something very different; if the Legislature intended something pretty nearly the opposite of what is said, it is not for Judges to invent something which they do not meet with in the words of the text ...................the true way in these cases is, to take the words as the Legislature have given them, ....................".

¶103

Going by the language used in Section 4 which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, we have no doubt in our mind that an appeal has been provided against an order of a single Judge only when it is passed in the exercise of his original jurisdiction i.e., when he deals with a petition under Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution. The right of appeal, as already observed, is a statutory right and where the statute has provided for an appeal only against an order of a single Judge passed in the exercise of his original jurisdiction it has to be held that no appeal would lie against an order passed by him in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Neither the Rules nor the Forms prescribed by the High Court could override or control the provisions of Section 4 of the Act which alone provides for an intra-court appeal only against the orders passed in exercise of original jurisdiction. Moreover, Rules 2

¶104

¶105

and 26 of the Writ Proceedings Rules do not provide for an appeal against an order of a learned single Judge passed in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kalpana Theatre's case (supra) was the correct law and that the Full Bench was not right in overruling the same. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the law laid down by the Full Bench in Ritz Hotels case (supra) is not the correct law and we over rule the same and hold that no appeal lies under Section 4 of the Act against an order passed by a learned single Judge in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution."

¶106

In the considered opinion of this Court the judgment delivered in the case of Kalpana Theatre vs. B.S. Ravishankar Major and Others reported in AIR 1995 KAR 426 does not help the petitioner in any manner as SLP against the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by passing a speaking order.

¶107

In the aforesaid case, the issue of filing a writ appeal against an order passed in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was not at all under consideration,

¶108

¶109

and therefore, the judgment does not help the appellant - petitioner in any manner.

¶110

Sri Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel has informed this Court that the appellant is in the habit of filing frivolous petitions and this is the 12th attempt on the part of the appellant to raise the issue in respect of amalgamation of three companies, namely, M/s.Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, M/s.Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Limited and M/s.Napean Trading and Investment Company Private Limited. The Companies were merged on account of a judicial order passed by this Court in Company Petition No.182/2014 on 26.03.2015.

¶111

It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that keeping in view the conduct of the present petitioner, this Court in Original Side Appeal No.1/2021, in respect of the same amalgamation has passed an order restraining the petitioner from filing any proceedings with regard to the amalgamation of three companies with

¶112

¶113

HASHAM Investment and Trading Company Private

¶114

Limited. The order passed by Division Bench in paragraphs 24 to 27 reads as under :

¶115

"24. Despite the above circumstances, we have considered the order of the learned Single Judge in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 and we find that the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the application filed in Company Application No.185/2016 seeking recall of the order dated 26.03.2015, by which, the scheme of the amalgamation of the three companies with respondent No.1 was sanctioned in Company Petition No.182/2014 as the appellant had no locus standi to file such an application hence, we find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is hence liable to be dismissed.

¶116

Before parting with this judgment, we would like to remind ourselves that in recent years there has emerged a trend of filing speculative litigation before various courts: of law, not just in the Court of first instance, but also in the High Court. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that such speculative litigation is weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing it to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants

¶117

¶118

seeking justice in their cases. We find that this is one stark instance of speculative litigation being filed not just by this appeal, but repeatedly over the years has been stated, filing of litigation has been firstly, before the Court Hon'ble of the Chief Justice in the form of a public interest litigation and thereafter in separate writ petitions on the same cause of action after withdrawing unconditionally the public interest litigation and not being successful in those cases and not being able to get over the order passed by the Union of India, dated 10.11.2017, a litigative mechanism has been devised to indirectly question the said order by way of seeking recall of the order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the learned Company Judge of this Court sanctioning the amalgamation of the three companies with respondent No.1 this is without having any locus standi to do so.

¶119

In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal as being without merit. However, we refrain from imposing any cost.

¶120

But, having regard to the checkered history with regard to this controversy, we refrain the appellant herein, India Awake for Transparency, from filing any proceeding with regard to the amalgamation of the three companies with respondent No.1 herein in future before any Court or authority or forum. We are constrained to pass such

¶121

¶122

an order having regard to the loss of precious public time of this court and other courts by raking up such a controversy by the appellant company, without having any locus standi to do so. The same is an instance of gross abuse of the process of law as well as of this Court."

¶123

Thus, in short, in respect of amalgamation of companies to which the present petitioner has been neither the share holder nor the debenture holder nor in any way connected with the Companies nor creditor is filing petitions after petitions for the reasons best known to him.

¶124

The Division Bench of this Court has arrived at a conclusion that it is only because of the personal vendetta, such petitions are being filed again and again. The Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A. No.1/2021 in para 20 has held as under :

¶125

"20. That apart, we also find substance in the submission of the learned senior counsel Sri. Ganesh who has submitted, the appellant herein, out of vengeance has sought to file proceeding after proceeding before this Court as well as the other fora

¶126

¶127

seeking to disrupt the functioning of respondent No.1/Company. That initially after filing and withdrawing the public interest litigation, the appellant filed several writ petitions and other proceedings and one of which has culminated in the order dated 25.03.2021 passed in Writ Appeal No.307/2021 (GMRES), whereunder the order dated 12.02.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.172/2021 of the learned Single Judge has been sustained. The relevant portion of the said order is in paragraph 14 has a bearing on the substance inasmuch as the very reason for questioning the order of amalgamation dated 26.03.2015 is set at naught by a co-ordinate Bench of this court. For immediate reference, paragraph 14 of the aforesaid order is extracted as under:

¶128

"14. As stated earlier, the genesis of the present writ appeal is the merger of three companies and the very same subject matter was questioned in the PIL, which has been withdrawn unconditionally. The order passed by the Division Bench has not been challenged before any Court or any forum. Undisputedly, the legal effect and consequence of the unconditional withdrawal of the said PIL is to bar and prohibit all subsequent proceedings before any Court or Tribunal, raising the same contentions, keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Sarguja Transport Service (supra). Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court towards various

¶129

¶130

proceedings initiated by the present appellant and the unsuccessful attempts by the appellant before this Court. It was argued with great force by the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri R. Subramanian that the fund of the Government of India have been siphoned on account of the merger of three companies. This Court really fails to understand as to how in case of merger of three private companies, the funds of Government of India have been siphoned. On the contrary, on account of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi, the Central Government has passed an order dated 10.11.2017 and the same makes it very clear that the Government of India was not having any stake in the three amalgamating companies. The High Court of Delhi in its recent order dated 01.03.2021 passed in LPA No.89/2021 has imposed costs upon the appellant. The appellant has filed the private complaints against Azim Premji Group of Companies and also approached NCLT under Sections 241, 242 and 244 of the Companies Act in CP No.15/2017 and the same was dismissed by the NCLT on 25.09.2017. An appeal was preferred before the NCLAT and the NCLAT in Company appeal (AT) No.362/2012 has passed an order dated 07.02.2018 dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs.2.00 lakhs." "

¶131

Another important aspect of the case is that in a writ petition preferred by the petitioner i.e., W.P.

¶132

¶133

No.172/2021 the learned Single Judge by an order dated 12.02.2021 has imposed a cost of Rs.10,00,000/- and same has not been paid so far and the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by this Court in W.A. No.307/2021. The Review Petition preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

¶134

It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has also imposed cost of Rs.2,00,000/- in Company Appeal (AT) No.362/2017 against which a SLP was preferred and the cost of Rs.2,00,000/- has not been paid. The Civil Appeal was dismissed and no relief was granted to the petitioner - appellant herein.

¶135

In the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition is nothing but a sheer abuse process of law. Therefore, the present petition also deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.5,00,000/-. The cost be paid positively within 30 days from today, failing which the District Collector / District Magistrate, Chennai

¶136

¶137

whosoever is the Administrative Head of the District shall recover the cost as arrears of land revenue and inform the Registrar General of this Court about the recovery of cost. The cost recovered from the petitioner be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Authority.

¶138

Sd/JUDGE

¶139

Sd/JUDGE

¶140

hnm

India Awake for Transparency v. Mr Azim Hasham Premji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

India Awake for Transparency v. Mr Azim Hasham Premji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sudhanva Bhandolkar B K Vs the State of Karnataka

Eranna H Vs Uco Bank

V Nandan Kamath Vs Muralinath Gupta

Siemens Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka