w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



India Awake for Transparency, Represented by its Authorised Signatory R. Subramanian, Chennai v/s Hasham Investment & Trading Company Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Bangalore & Others

    Company Application No. 185 of 2016 In Company Petition No. 182 of 2014

    Decided On, 17 March 2021

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

    For the Applicant: R. Subramanian, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R4, R8, & R9, S. Ganesh, Sr. Counsel, M. Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. Counsel, Saji P. John, M/s. SPJ Legal, Advocates, R5, R.V.S. Naik, Sr. Counsel, Rashmi Subramanya, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This C.A. is filed Under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying to that the scheme of amalgamation, Annexure-A hereto, sanctioned by this Hon'ble Court so as to be binding on the Transfer Companies and its shareholders and creditors, and also on the petitioner company and its sharehodlers and creditors and etc.)

1. In this application filed under Rules 6 and 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules'), the applicant seeks recalling of the impugned order dated 26.03.2015 passed by this Court allowing the aforesaid petitions in Co.P.No.182/2015 & connected matters, thereby sanctioning the scheme of Amalgamation sought for in the petitions.

2. The application is opposed by the respondents who have filed their statement of objections.

3. I have heard Sri.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the applicant. I have also heard Sri.S.Ganesh, Senior counsel and Sri.M.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Saji P.John, learned counsel for SPJ Legal for respondents 1, 4, 8 and 9 as well as Sri.R.V.S.Naik, learned Senior counsel for Ms.Rashmi Subramanya, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Smt.Prema Hatti, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 6 and perused the material on record.

4. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1, 4, 8 and 9 raised objections with regard to the maintainability of the instant application; in this regard, a Memo dated 10.12.2020 has been filed by the aforesaid respondents inter-alia contending that since the applicant had no interest in the Amalgamation allowed by the impugned order since it is neither a shareholder nor a creditor or a Director of the company, it has no locus to file the present application; in the absence of any provision under the Act or the Rules which empower a review / recall the application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed; so also, having regard to the unconditional withdrawal of W.P.No.3635/2020 filed by the applicant putting forth the very same contentions as well as rejection of the claim of the applicant by both the RBI and Central Government vide orders dated 29.05.2017 and 16.10.2017, the present application seeking to urge the very contentions is liable to be rejected.

5. Elaborating the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that apart from the fact that the applicant does not have locus standi to file the present application, neither the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') nor the Rules provide for seeking review and as such, the present application is not maintainable; so also, the complaint of the applicant to the RBI and Central Government pursuant to orders passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.No.4905/2017 and connected matters filed by the applicant against the respondents having been rejected by both the RBI and Central Government vide Orders dated 05.09.2017 and 10.11.2017 respectively coupled with the fact that the writ petition in W.P.No.3635/2020 (PIL) filed by the applicant putting forth the very same contentions having been unconditionally withdrawn by him on 01.10.2020 in addition to three other writ petitions in W.P.13838/2020 dated 08.01.2021, W.P.No.11482/2020 dated 18.01.2021 and W.P.No.172/2021 dated 12.02.2021, all filed by the applicant having been dismissed by this Court, the present application is not maintainable.

In support of their contentions, learned Senior counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Income -Tax Officer, Ernakulam vs The Mambad Timber And Estates Kerala - 1972 SCC Online Ker 91;

(ii) Miheer.H. Mafatlal vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. - (1997) 1 SCC 579;

(iii) L.Mullick and Co. and others vs. Binani Properties P.Ltd., and Ors- 1980 SCC online Cal 231;

(iv) The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Sadashiva Sugars Limited - Company Application No.1789/2014 D.D. 23.12.2017 - Karnataka High Court;

(v) Ramjas Foundation and another vs. UOI and Ors - (2010)14 SCC 38;

(vi) Dr.B.Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. - (2004) 3 SCC 363;

(vii) Jasbhai Motibhaj Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors - (1976(1) SCC 671;

(viii) Sabra Bano vs M.P. Electricity Board Jabalapur and Ors - 1997(1) M.P. L.J. 448;

(ix) Grindlays Bank Ltd., vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others - 1980 (Supp) SCC 420;

(x) Harbhajan Singh vs. Karam Singh and Others- AIR 1966 SC 641;

(xi) Peerless General Finance Investment Company Limited and Another vs. RBI - (1992) 2 SCC 343;

(xii) Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited and Another vs. CSEPDI-TRISHE Consortium and Another - 2017 4 SCC 318;

(xiii) Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union vs. Management of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited.- (2005) 13 SCC 177;

(xiv) SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. TUFF Drilling Private Limited - (2018) 11 SCC 470;

(xv) Unique Delta Force Security Private Ltd., vs. Sumeet Facilities Pvt. Ltd., Building - 2012 SCC Online Bom 1191;

(xvi) Castron Technologies Limited vs. Castron Mining Limited - 2013 SCC Online Cal 12914;

(xvii) S.K.Gupta and Another vs. K.P.Jain and Another - (1979) 3 SCC 54;

(xviii) Meghal Homes (P) Ltd., vs. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti & Others - (2007) 7 SCC 753;

(xix) Reliance Natural Resources Limited vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., - (2010) 7 SCC 1.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant made the following submissions:-

a) The legality and validity of the impugned order having been assailed by the applicant on the ground of fraud, the question of locus standi of the applicant is not relevant and the contention of the respondents in this regard is liable to be rejected.

b) The suo moto powers of this Court under Rules 6 and 9 of the Rules r/w Section 151 CPC empower this Court to recall its own order on the ground of fraud and as such, the question of locus standi of the applicant does not arise;

c) By way of answer to the contention of the respondents regarding there being no provision under the Act to seek review of the impugned order and the application seeking review on merits is not permissible, learned counsel for the applicant has filed a memo dated 22.12.2020 specifically stating that the application has not been filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Act and the application is in the nature of procedural review; it is therefore contended that the said contention of the respondents is liable to be rejected.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres - (1996) 5 SCC 550;

(ii) A.V.Papayya Sastry vs. Govt. of A.P. - (2007) 4 SCC 221;

(iii) Hazma Haji vs. State of Kerala & Another - (2006)7 SCC 416;

(iv) SK Gupta vs. KP Jain - (1979) 3 SCC 54;

(v) Horace Kevin Gonsalves vs. Prabha Ganpat Borkar - 2015(6) Mh.L.J. 208;

(vi) Peter John D Souza vs. Armstrong Joseph D' Souza- 2014(3) Mh.L.J. 876;

(vii) G H Yusuf Sait vs. S.Ramamurthy - AIR 1963 Mad 367;

(viii) Kumaran Vaidhyar & Others vs. K S Venkatishwaran & Others - 1991 SCC Online Ker 99;

(ix) Punjab Breweries vs. GT Agencies - 2008 SCC Online P & H 794;

(x) M M Thomas vs. State of Kerala - 2000(1) SC 666;

(xi) Century Flour Mills Limited vs. S.Suppaiah & Others;

(xii) Laxmi Dhar Raul vs. Debraj Mohanty & Others - 2003 SCC Online Ori 136;

(xiii) All Bengal Excise Licenses Association vs. Raghabendra Singh & Others - 2007 (11) SCC 374;

(xiv) Grindlays Bank Limited vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & Others - 1980 (Supp) SCC 420;

(xv) State of Gujarat vs. Sardarbegum and others - 1976(3) SCC 416;

(xvi) Board of Revenue, U P Lucknow vs. Vinay Chandra Misra - (1981) 1 SCC 436;

(xvii) Vallabh Das vs. Dr.Madan Lal & Others - 1970(1) SCC 761;

(xviii) Ms.Ramnarain P. Ltd. & Others vs. State Trading Corporation of India Limited - 1983(3) SCC 75;

(xix) V Rajendran & Others vs. Annasamy Pandian - 2017(5) SCC 63;

(xx) Ramesh Chandra Sankala and others vs. Vikram Cement and others- 2008(14) SCC 58;

(xxi) Sarva Shramik Sanghatana vs. State of Maharastra and others - 2008(1) SCC 494;

(xxii) Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation vs. Anil Garh and others - 2017(14) SCC 634;

(xxiii) Fida Hussain and others vs. Moradabad Development Authority and others - 2011(12) SCC 615;

(xxiv) Khanapuram Gandhaiah vs. Administrative Officer & Others - 2010(2) SCC 2;

(xxv) Hindustan Lever Employees' Union vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and others - 1995(1) SCC 499;

(xxvi) Vimala Kumari Kulsreshtha vs. Shambhajirao and another - 2008(5) SCC 58;

(xxvii) Chairman cum MD COAL India Ltd., and Another vs. Anatha Saha and others - 2011(5) SCC 142;

(xxviii) Arun Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others - 2007(1) SCC 732;

(xxix) Kiran Singh and others vs. Chaman Paswan and others - AIR 1954 SC 340;

(xxx) Balwant N Viswamitra and others vs. Yadhav Sadashiv Mule & Others - 2004(8) SCC 706;

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In my view, the application filed by the applicant seeking recall of the impugned order dated 26.03.2015 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:

(a) Since the applicant was undisputedly not a party to the main petitions nor the impugned order dated 26.03.2015, applicant did not have any locus standi to file the application; the applicant was not an 'aggrieved person', since it was neither a shareholder nor a director or any other person which is connected to or has any nexus with the parties to the proceedings or the impugned order and the applicant did not have locus standi to maintain the instant application;

(b) The applicant was neither necessary nor proper party to the proceedings and since there was no warrant to hear the applicant before passing the impugned order, the question of even hearing the applicant or the applicant being entitled to seek recall of the impugned order does not arise and the application is liable to be dismissed for want/lack of locus standi on the part of the applicant;

(c) The instant application is in the nature of a review petition which is not maintainable for want/lack of locus standi on the part of the applicant, particularly when the applicant is not a person who can be said to be aggrieved by the impugned order which would entitle him to seek review of the same;

(d) Except stating at paragraph 20 of the instant application that the same was in public interest, there is absolutely no other averment in the entire application with regard to the locus standi of the applicant to maintain the application; it follows there from that the application is in the nature of a public interest petition which is neither contemplated nor permissible under Rules 6 and 9 of the Rules, which have been invoked by the applicant; in other words, the present application purportedly filed in public interest to recall the impugned order does not attract Rules 6 and 9 (supra) and consequently, the application is not maintainable on this ground also;

(e) Undisputedly, the applicant is not a party to the present company petition or the impugned order. While dealing with the locus standi of a non - party to a proceeding to seek review, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. NareshKumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. - (2019) 18 SCC 586, held as under:-

"18. Reverting to the question of whether the Union of India has locus to file the review petition, we must immediately advert to Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) which, inter alia, postulates that "any person considering himself aggrieved" would have locus to file a review petition. Order 47 CPC restates the position that any person considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court exercises review jurisdiction by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution which predicates that the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Besides, the Supreme Court has framed Rules to govern review petitions. Notably, neither Order 47 CPC nor Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review. Therefore, we have no hesitation in enunciating that even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect.

As held by the Apex Court in the above decision, the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order in some way or the other, is a sine qua non for filing the present application; under these circumstances, without the applicant being an aggrieved person, it cannot be said that it has a locus standi to file and maintain the present application.

(f) In its Memo dated 22.12.2020, applicant has specifically stated that it has not/does not intend to invoke Sections 391 to 394 of the Act for the purpose of the present application; in view of this specific stand of the applicant that Sections 391 to 394 of the Act do not apply to the instant application, since there is no other provision under the Act relating to modification of a scheme of amalgamation, the application is liable to be dismissed on this ground also; the application seeking recalling of the impugned Order passed under Sections 392 of the Act is also not maintainable under Sections 391 to 394 of the Act;

(g) Even to invoke the inherent powers of this Court (Company Court) either under Section 151 CPC (by virtue of Rule 6) or under Rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959, it is absolutely essential that the applicant is an 'aggrieved person' and has locus standi to maintain the application; applicant who is not an aggrieved person does not have locus standi to invoke the inherent powers of this Court and seek recalling of the impugned order;

(h) Merely because the applicant has made allegations of fraud and collusion, it cannot be said that applicant has locus standi to invoke inherent powers of this Court to recall the impugned order; In other words, even to seek recall of the impugned order by invoking inherent powers of this Court by alleging fraud, it is absolutely imperative and incumbent that the applicant is an aggrieved person having locus standi to file the application and in the absence thereof, the present application is not maintainable.

(i) In its Memo dated 22.12.2020, applicant has also stated that the relief of recalling the impugned order is in the nature of a 'procedural review' and not a 'review on merits'; by stating so, applicant has not only admitted that there does not exist any statutory provision enabling the applicant to seek review on merits, applicant has also admitted that it only seeks to invoke inherent powers of this Court by way of a procedural review; consequently, in the absence of locus standi, since the applicant is not an aggrieved person, the application seeking recalling of the impugned order by way of a procedural review is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed;

(j) In order to maintain the instant application by way of procedural review, it is absolutely essential that the applicant should have been a party to the proceedings and the impugned order and that the same ought to have caused prejudice to the applicant and/or affected its rights; at any rate, applicant should at least be an 'aggrieved person' who should necessarily have been affected by the impugned order in some way or the other and in the absence of the same, the application was liable to be dismissed;

(k) The contention of the applicant that when fraud and collusion are alleged, question of locus standi does not arise / is not relevant is baseless and devoid of merit and the said contention is to be noted only to be rejected; in the light of specific averment in paragraph 20 of the application that it has been filed in public interest, existence of locus standi becomes extremely relevant and material and without the applicant being a 'person aggrieved', any amount of allegations of fraud and collusion are of no consequence and will not make the application maintainable;

(l) The claim of the applicant in the present application with regard to the impugned order sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation has already been urged by the applicant before the Delhi High Court in W.P.No.4905/2017 and connected matters filed by the applicant against the respondents and the same having been rejected by both the RBI and Central Government vide Orders dated 05.09.2017 and 10.11.2017 which have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the applicant and consequently, the instant application is not maintainable on this ground also;

(m) The conduct of the applicant in repeatedly filing applications, petitions, complaints, appeals etc., before various forums including this Court including a public interest petition in W.P.3635/2020(PIL) which was also withdrawn unconditionally by the applicant on 01.10.2020 as well as the orders passed by this Court in W.P.13838/2020 dated 08.01.2021, W.P.No.11482/2020 dated 18.01.2021 and W.P.No.172/2021 dated 12.02.2021, all filed by the applicant which were dismissed with costs is sufficient to establish that the applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present application also; in fact, in the aforesaid W.P.No.172/2021 dated 12.02.2021, while dismissing the petition after noticing the conduct of the applicant, and imposing exemplary costs of Rs.10 lakhs on the applicant, this Court held as under:-

"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 elaborate arguments.

16. Admittedly, petitioner has approached Delhi High Court for a direction against the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Pursuant to the order passed by the Delhi High Court, Ministry of Corporate Affairs has passed a detailed order on November 10, 2017 after examining the issue raised by the petitioner and it reads as follows:

"This has reference to your letter cited above, which was forwarded by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its letter dated 02/05/2017 for examination. In this regard, you are informed that this office examined the issue raised by you in so far as it relates to the role of this office, O/o ROC and O/o OL in the case of merger of three transferor companies, viz 1) M/s. Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, 2) M/s. Napean Trading and Investment Company Private Limited 3) M/s Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Limited with the transferee Company viz M/s Hasham Investment and Trading company Private Limited vide CP No.182 to 185/2014 (not 181 to 184) as marked by you) and have to state as follows.

1. The equity shareholding of all the three transferor companies are interlinked/cross held and that each of the transferor companies owned by the other two transferor companies. M/s. Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited is owned by M/s. Napean Trading and Investment Company Private Limited and M/s Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Limited jointly, while M/s. Napean Trading and Investment Company Private Limited is owned by M/s. Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited and M/s Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Limited. Similarly, M/s Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Limited is owned by M/s. Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited and M/s. Napean Investment and Trading Company Private Limited each of these companies are registered under Companies Act and therefore, are legal persons capable of owning property and enjoy the privileges of a corporate person. Hence, it is not correct to say that the transferor companies are ownerless and that the assets of the said companies belong to Union of India.

2. It is further stated that, the Companies Act allows a company to be incorporated with the subscription to the Memorandum by Corporate Entities. There is no stipulation that these shall be natural persons 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 assets and liabilities of transferor companies to the transferee company without any saving whatsoever. None of the companies involved in the scheme are also not falling any complaints nor any Regulatory actions.

5. Accordingly, there is no negative ground or observation whatsoever for the Regional Director to report to the Hon'ble Court in the said scheme, except to the extent that, the transferee company is not NBFC while the three transferor companies were NBFC's and were registered with the RBI, being the Regulator. The Regional Director had also observed that the transferee company cannot undertake the business of transferor company and hence, need to undertake to register with RBI as NBFC company. The Regional Director's report to the Hon'ble Court specifically requires submission on NOC from RBI. It also dealt with/pointed out the qualifications of Auditors on the balance sheets of transferor companies which were relating to certain non-compliance of RBI Regulations applicable for NBFCs thus, the Regional Director has carried on due diligence before filing his report on the merger before the Hon'ble High Court in response to the notice u/s 394A of the Companies Act, 1956.

6. It is also observed that the OL, Bangalore had caused appointment of Chartered Accountant firm (Ramraj & Co) to verify the books and records of the transferor companies before filing his report. The said firm opined that the transferor companies have not conducted their affairs against public interest or against interest of its members.

7. In the light of the above, it may be noted that there were no grounds for the Regional Director either to have made any negative observations before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at the time of merger nor are there any tenable grounds to seek annulment/ revocation of the approved merger."(Sic.)

17. Not being satisfied, petitioner has filed a PIL in this Court and withdrawn unconditionally. Thereafter, he has filed five separate writ petitions against different authorities.

18. Shri. Subramanian's specific contention is, relief sought in this writ petition is not the same as in the PIL before this Court. Prayers in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) are not sought in the PIL. In prayer clause (e), petitioner has sought for a direction against the Ministry of Corporate Affairs to authorize petitioner 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 Rs.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 Rs.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 equity in these Companies.

23. In paragraph No.1 of its complaint dated November 9, 2020, petitioner has stated that the entities controlled by Mr. Azim Premji including the seven companies named therein have committed various violations under the Companies Act. Out of the said seven Companies, three are the very same Companies namely Vidya Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., Regal Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and Napean Trading and Investment Company Pvt. Ltd.

24. 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 a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

verred 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. 25. 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. 26. In W.P. No.3635/2020 (India Awake for Transparency Vs. Union of India and others), the PIL filed in this Court, petitioner has sought directions against the respondents therein based on his representation/complaints dated January 30, 2020 and February 3, 2020. Though the dates of complaint is different, the subject matter is again the same i.e., transactions involving 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. (paragraph No.10 of the writ petition). 27. 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. 28. In the result, 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. 29. In view of the above, the preliminary objection raised by Shri. S. Ganesh and Shri. C.V. Nagesh are sustained and this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) payable by petitioner to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru within four weeks from today. Registry shall report compliance after expiry of four weeks. 30. In view of dismissal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of". (n) A perusal of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court clearly indicates that the applicant is guilty of abuse of process of law and his conduct disentitles him from any relief in the present petition also. In fact, as noticed by this Court in the earlier orders, the claim of the applicant has been rejected not only by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs but also by the Reserve Bank of India. Under these circumstances also, I am of the considered opinion that the present application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed.
O R