TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and to direct respondents No.1 to 10 therein to constitute a multi-disciplinary investigation team to investigate and prosecute Mr.A.H.Premji (respondent No.11 therein) and his associates for the offences alleged to have been committed by them, set out in petitioner's representations submitted to respondents No.1 to 6 therein. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs against whom a direction is sought in this writ petition was arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the said PIL. Petitioner has unconditionally withdrawn the PIL. Thereafter, it has filed five separate writ petitions against various statutory authorities. W.P. No. 13838/2020 is against SEBI, W.P. No.12073/2020 is against Enforcement Directorate, W.P. No.11482/2020 is against Reserve Bank of India (RBI). All three writ petitions have been dismissed. 2. Shri. Ganesh has submitted that this writ petition is directed against the Ministry of Corporate Affairs which was second respondent in the PIL. In view of unconditional withdrawal of the PIL, this petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 3. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 4. In the PIL, the Ministry of Corporate affairs i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petition. The complaint dated March 14, 2017 is common in writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court as also in this writ petition. The complaint dated January 30, 2020 is common in the PIL and this writ petition. 10. In reply, Shri. Subramanian, learned Advocate for petitioner made following submission: * the relief sought in the PIL and in this writ petition are not one and the same; * if a petitioner seeks different relief on the same cause of action, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply; * what was under consideration before the Division Bench while hearing the PIL was, maintainability of PIL at the instance of the petitioner. Petitioner withdrew the writ petition as a PIL was not maintainable and thereafter filed independent writ petitions against different respondents; * the PIL was withdrawn as there was a formal defect which had rendered the writ petition incompetent. Therefore, petitioner cannot be barred from agitating his cause in this writ petition. 11. With the above main contentions, Shri. Subramanian sought to oppose the preliminary objection. 12. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 13. At the outset, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment 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 theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;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 unconditionall....