TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck Exchange of India Limited ("NSE"). The Petitioner seeks preservation and production of the complete record; disclosure by DVI Fund (Mauritius) Ltd. ("DVI Fund"), Soach Global Opportunities Fund ("Soach Global") and similarly placed entities of their ownership, ultimate beneficial ownership and source of funds; restraint on their participation in NSE's proposed Offer for Sale or alienation of the impugned shareholding pending disclosure and inquiry; deposit of any transfer proceeds in an interest-bearing escrow account in India; examination by the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI") of the transfers, transferees' fit and proper status and beneficial ownership; and consideration of the Petitioner's complaint dated 05.06.2026 by the SEBI and the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI"), including, if warranted, an independent investigation by the CBI or any other competent agency. 2. The facts, in brief, which are germane to the present PIL, are that IFCI, being the successor to the statutory Industrial Finance Corporation of India and a founding shareholder of NSE, held 24,97,750 equity shares of NSE as on 31.03.2015, constituting 5.55% of its paid-up equity share ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest in the litigation, and that he does not seek judicial review of the commercial wisdom of the erstwhile management of IFCI, but only a limited direction for investigation into the alleged loss caused to the public exchequer. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for NSE opposed the present PIL at the threshold as being abuse of process of law, submitting that the Petitioner has indulged in forum shopping. It was pointed out that the Petitioner has already instituted a writ petition, being W.P. No. 2408/2026, titled Parinay Sharma v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Anr. ("Bombay Writ"), before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which is pending consideration and seeks substantially similar prayers as sought in the present PIL. 7. A copy of the Bombay Writ was handed over by the learned Counsel for NSE, and it is directed to be taken on record. 8. It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for NSE that the Bombay Writ was instituted on 02.05.2026 and was listed for pre-admission hearing on 20.07.2026, which is prior to the institution of the present PIL on 05.08.2026. Despite this, the Petitioner did not disclose the factum of the filing the Bombay Writ i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and with complete candour. Before examining the grievance raised, this Court must first be satisfied that the Petitioner has approached it in good faith and with full disclosure of all material facts. 14. It is in pursuance of such complete disclosure and for prevention of abuse of the process of court that Rule 9(i)(h) of the PIL Rules mandates that, where a petitioner has previously filed any PIL or preferred any letter petition, the details thereof must be disclosed to the Court in tabular form, indicating the writ petition number, its status, and its outcome. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the Court, at the threshold, to ascertain who is before it, what causes the petitioner has previously pursued, and whether the same or an overlapping cause is already pending before another forum. It operates as a safeguard against parallel proceedings and the possibility of conflicting adjudication on the same subject matter. Rule 9(i)(h) of the PIL Rules reads as under: "(h) If the petitioner has previously filed public interest litigation or preferred Letter Petitions, the details thereof would be set out in a tabular form giving the number of the writ petition, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso merits acceptance. 20. It is well settled that a person invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court must approach the Court with clean hands and must make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts. Suppression of a material fact, or the making of an incorrect statement on oath, disentitles such litigant to relief at the threshold, irrespective of the merits of the underlying cause. 21. This principle applies with greater rigour in proceedings instituted as a PIL, where the petitioner professes to espouse a public cause rather than a private grievance. In the present case, what has been withheld is not a fact external to the Petitioner's knowledge, but a parallel proceeding instituted by the Petitioner himself. As a result, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue substantially overlapping reliefs before two different Courts simultaneously. 22. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, (2010) 3 SCC 402, the Supreme Court has observed that the jurisdiction in public interest litigation is susceptible to abuse by petitions instituted with oblique motives, and that frivolous petitions styled as PILs must be discouraged. The Court further emphasised that....