Restoration of concluded writ petitions requires legally cognisable fraud or a fresh cause of action, not later objections alone.

A concluded writ petition was not restored on the basis of alleged non-disclosure by the respondents, because the omission to mention parallel proceedings did not amount to legally cognisable fraud absent proof of deceit, unfair advantage, or prejudice sufficient to vitiate the earlier disposal. The Court also noted that seeking restoration without challenging the prior disposal in review would effectively reopen a concluded order through a fresh application. A later buyback notice and related steps under the Companies Act were treated as a separate, independent cause of action, leaving any challenge to be pursued in appropriate proceedings rather than by reviving the disposed writ petition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disposed writ petition should be restored on the ground that the respondents suppressed their challenge before the Delhi High Court and thereby practised fraud on the Court; (ii) Whether the later buyback notice and related steps furnished a fresh basis for restoring the writ petition or granting the interim reliefs sought.

Issue (i): Whether the disposed writ petition should be restored on the ground that the respondents suppressed their challenge before the Delhi High Court and thereby practised fraud on the Court.

Analysis: The petition had been disposed of after the settlement order stood revoked, while the petitioners' other grievances were expressly kept open for appropriate proceedings. The respondents' omission to disclose that they had initiated proceedings elsewhere was found to be an instance of a fair and candid disclosure not having been made. However, that conduct was not treated as fraud on the Court in the legal sense because no deceit or unfair advantage sufficient to vitiate the earlier disposal was established, and no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the petitioners by the order already passed. The application also sought restoration without assailing the earlier disposal by review, which would in substance amount to reopening a concluded order on a fresh application.

Conclusion: The prayer for restoration was rejected and no fraud vitiating the earlier disposal was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the later buyback notice and related steps furnished a fresh basis for restoring the writ petition or granting the interim reliefs sought.

Analysis: The later buyback notice was treated as an independent subsequent development arising under the Companies Act and the relevant rules, with actions already having been taken and payments made to shareholders who opted for exit. The Court held that any grievance concerning that notice would constitute an independent cause of action to be pursued in appropriate proceedings, not a ground to restore the concluded writ petition. The substantive challenges already kept open in the earlier order remained available to be agitated separately, and no fresh justiciable issue arose warranting revival of the disposed proceedings.

Conclusion: The later buyback notice did not justify restoration or interim interference in the present proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because the earlier disposal remained effective, the alleged suppression did not amount to fraud sufficient to reopen the matter, and the subsequent buyback-related grievance had to be pursued, if at all, in separate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded writ petition cannot be restored on a miscellaneous application merely because subsequent proceedings or non-disclosure by the opposing side are later pointed out, unless a legally cognisable fraud or a fresh surviving cause of action is established; subsequent independent grievances must be pursued in separate proceedings.

---