Forum shopping and laches cannot be inferred where a petition is refiled in the forum expressly permitted by court.

Refiling an oppression and mismanagement petition before the Company Law Board after withdrawal from the High Court with express liberty did not amount to forum shopping or abuse of process, because the later filing was a permitted continuation of the same dispute. The delay could not be treated as laches merely because the matter had remained pending in the High Court, since the earlier proceedings and the court-sanctioned refiling explained the lapse. The adverse findings on forum shopping and limitation were set aside, and the matter was remitted for decision on the merits within a fixed time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refiling of the oppression and mismanagement petition before the Company Law Board pursuant to permission granted by the High Court constituted forum shopping or an abuse of process. (ii) Whether the petition could be dismissed for laches and delay merely because it had earlier remained pending in the High Court and was later pursued before the Company Law Board.

Issue (i): Whether the refiling of the oppression and mismanagement petition before the Company Law Board pursuant to permission granted by the High Court constituted forum shopping or an abuse of process.

Analysis: The petition had originally been filed in the High Court and was later withdrawn with liberty to approach the Company Law Board after the jurisdictional change. Action taken in accordance with that judicial permission could not be treated as forum shopping. The later petition was a continuation of the same dispute and the similarity in pleadings flowed from the permitted refiling, not from any improper choice of forum. The adverse inference drawn by the Company Law Board was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The finding of forum shopping and abuse of process was and could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition could be dismissed for laches and delay merely because it had earlier remained pending in the High Court and was later pursued before the Company Law Board.

Analysis: The Company Law Board treated the period during which the matter remained pending in the High Court as delay attributable to the petitioner and also relied on alleged repetition of pleadings to infer want of diligence. That approach overlooked that the High Court had itself permitted withdrawal and refiling, and the similarity of allegations was a natural consequence of the same cause of action being pursued in the appropriate forum. The refusal to examine the merits solely on this basis was therefore erroneous.

Conclusion: The dismissal on the ground of laches and limitation was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Company Law Board was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on the merits within a fixed time frame.

Ratio Decidendi: Refilling a petition in the forum expressly permitted by the Court cannot, by itself, constitute forum shopping or furnish a valid basis to reject the matter for laches where the delay is traceable to the earlier court proceedings and not to any abuse by the petitioner.

---