2017 (9) TMI 1968 - HC - Companies Law

Court dismisses writ petition seeking Writ of Mandamus against respondents for improper investigation. Petitioner penalized for abuse of process.

Gurajala Venkateswara Rao Versus Union of India AND 25 OTRS.

The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents for failing to conduct a proper ... Failure to conduct a proper investigation, pursuant to the raids conducted by the 3rd respondent - HELD THAT:- After this Court closed the last of the series of writ petitions on 19.07.2016, there appears to have been an income tax raid on 07.04.2017 and 08.04.2017 in the premises of the 6th respondent Company. Upon seeing news items in the print and electronic media that a few crores had been recovered during the raids, the petitioner got motivated once again, commenced war against the respondents, and has come up with the present writ petition. But, as we have pointed out earlier, the writ Court is not intended for people to settle private scores. The war launched by the petitioner has gone unabated from the year 2011 for the past six years. Every Court has taken a lenient view, even while dismissing the writ petitions of the petitioner, which has perhaps emboldened him to again and again make an attempt through this Court to settle a private dispute that he has. It is high time that the abuse of process of Court is put an end to by imposing costs. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Issues:- Petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus against respondents for failing to conduct proper investigation- Previous litigation history of the petitioner against the same respondents- Allegations of the petitioner harassing companies by filing numerous cases- Income tax raid leading to a new writ petition by the petitioner- Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition and impose costs on the petitionerAnalysis:1. The primary issue in this judgment involves the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents for allegedly failing to conduct a proper investigation following raids conducted by the 3rd respondent. The Court noted that this was the 106th case filed by the petitioner against the private respondents for the same reason. The petitioner's repeated attempts to obtain relief through the courts were highlighted, leading to the Court's observation of the petitioner virtually declaring a war on the contesting respondents across various forums.2. The judgment delves into the previous litigation history of the petitioner against the same respondents. The Court mentioned earlier cases disposed of by a Bench in 2016, where it was observed that the petitioner had filed numerous writ petitions against various authorities. Despite this, the Court had taken a lenient view previously, but the petitioner's persistent behavior led to the current case.3. Another crucial issue addressed in the judgment is the allegations of harassment by the petitioner towards companies by filing innumerable cases. The Court highlighted the submissions made by the contesting respondents, emphasizing that the petitioner had been targeting companies within the same group with multiple legal actions, prompting the respondents to argue against entertaining the petitions.4. Following an income tax raid in 2017, the petitioner filed a new writ petition, reigniting the legal battle. However, the Court reiterated that the writ system is not meant for settling private scores and emphasized that the abuse of the court process must be stopped. The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs on the petitioner, emphasizing the need to deter such misuse of the legal system.5. In conclusion, the judgment reflects the Court's stance on the petitioner's persistent litigation against the respondents, emphasizing the need to prevent the abuse of the court process. By dismissing the writ petition and imposing costs, the Court aims to deter the petitioner from continuing the pattern of filing repetitive cases to settle private disputes, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal system.