TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (11) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceeding and if the law permits reinstitution in the same or some other forum provided the exercise is not vitiated by mala fides but the reason why the dispute has snowballed is because of the fact that some of the Courts have taken the view that if a company petition of this type is withdrawn there would be a bar to incorporating the grounds or material from the petition that has been withdrawn in a subsequent proceeding which may be maintainable on additional grounds. The learned counsel who represent the applicant have pointed out to me that it is out of abundant caution that the liberty of this Court has been sought and briefly stated, the reasons stated by them are that the petition in question was instituted in the year 1989 and tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art from the facts of the present case the Courts do come across a litigation being used for purposes of either setting scores or some other oblique reason and the party who is required to contest or defend that litigation is undoubtedly subjected to all sorts of harassment, expenditure and even embarrass- ment. Also, having regard to the fact that these litigations drag on almost interminably, there is good ground for a party who is at the receiving end to insist on a degree of finality in litigation and opposing any attempt at elongation. There is a class of litigations that is undoubtedly vexatious and the Supreme Court has had occasion to categorise such litigation as 'fake litigation'. Courts do come across situations wherein parties s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fused by this Court. The main thrust of his argument was that it is perfectly permissible for the Court to take into account developments both factual and legal that have taken place after the date of filing of the petition in the present petition without its being reinstituted from the very inception. The learned counsel drew my attention to two decisions : Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd [1981] 51 Comp. Cas. 743 (SC), Promode Kumar Mittal v. Southern Steel Ltd [1980] 50 Comp. Cas. 555 (Cal.), wherein the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court very clearly enunciated the proposition that subsequent events or developments can certainly be taken cognizance of by the company court hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e complete case the law makes provision for this to be done within the existing proceedings. 5. Lastly, Mr. Raghavan pointed out to me that his apprehension with regard to the future possible course of action is a very real one because he stated that if the proceeding were to be restarted having regard to the amendments to the law it would go to the Company Law Board and he pointed out that for a variety of reasons there is such a huge pile-up and back log of cases pending there that it would be a long long time before the proceeding is culminated. This last aspect of the matter may be the least important because the Court has to proceed basically on principles of law and even though I do concede that the last point is of relevance, it c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mendments on the ground that the petition requires to be updated. That course of action may appear to be possible but, in my considered view, that does not seem to be a line of action which a Court can uphold. The reason for this is that as far as the present case goes, the passage of time has been relatively long and the nature and volume of the material that will have to be added on to the original petition is so very substantial that any Court would take the view that a new petition is the right course of action as such grafting would over-load and overhaul the existing petition to a point where it would be difficult to sustain or legally permit an amendment. The law clearly defines the parameters within which amendments can be permitted....