Ali Jawad Ameerhasan Rizvi and others vs Indo French Biotech Enterprises Ltd. and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1999 Supreme(Bom) 564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Y.K. Sabharwal, C. J. S.H. Kapadia, J.
Ali Jawad Ameerhasan Rizvi others..... Petitioners.
Versus
Indo French Biotech Enterprises Ltd. others..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 434 of 1998 with Notice of Motion No. 176 222 of 1999, decided on 5-8-1999.
Advocates appeared :
A.J. Rizvi, for the petitioners.
J.B. Chinai with Rajiv Wagh and B.B. Parekh, for respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
S. H Doctor with S.B. Jijina i/b Mulla Mulla Craigie Blunt Caroe, for respondents Nos. 2 and 15.
O.P. Soni, for respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
M.V. Limaye, for respondent No. 7.
R.V. Govilkar, Government Pleader, for the State.
Rahul Chitnis with B.G. Saraf, for respondent No. 9.
Kumar Desai, i/b Maneksha Sethna, for the respondent No. 10.
D.Y. Chandrachud, Addl. Solicitor General i/b U.U. Bergis, for respondent No. 13.
S.K. Srivastav i/b S.K. Srivastav Co., for intervenors.

Headnote:Article 226-Public interest litigation-In petition facts not fully disclosed-Material facts suppressed-Being vexatious petition for personal gains under colour of PIL-Petition rejected outright.- Though it may be difficult to find out the correct position, but there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that in the manner above stated the material facts were suppressed from this Court. It is Courts duty to discourage filing of such petition. With increasing number of such petitions, it has become necessary to ensure that the course of justice is not polluted by unscrupulous litigants for personal matters under the garb of public interest litigation. Only a person acting bona fide has a locus to approach this Court. A vexatious petition under the colour of public interest litigation for vindicating personal grievance or for personal gains deserves outright rejection. As already noted, innumerable days have been wasted on account of this vexatious petitions. This time, otherwise, could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants.
Article 226-Public interest litigation-Only person acting bona fide has locus to approach-Vexatious petition under colour of public interest for vindicating personal grievance or personal gains deserves outright rejection.-Public interest litigation had been invoked by the petitioners led by petitioner No.1, a member of legal ,profession who is supposed to be acquainted with the parameters of public interest jurisprudence and owes an obligation not only to the Court but also to litigating public making it clear to them as well that such petition cannot be filed to settle personal scores. With increasing number of such petitions, it has become necessary to ensure that the course of justice is not polluted by unscrupulous litigants for personal matters under the garb of public interest litigation. Only a person acting bona fide has a locus to approach the High Court. A vexatious petition under the colour of public interest litigation for vindicating personal grievance or for personal gains, deserves outright rejection.

JUDGMENT - Y.K. SABHARWAL, C.J.:---This petition, in public interest, was filed in February, 1998 and is pending since then. Orders passed from time to time clearly show that hours and hours of Court time were spent on consideration of the grievances made by the petitioners. The petitioners are four in number. As many as 16 reliefs have been claimed. There are 15 respondents including Minerals Metal Trading Corporation Limited, Securities Exchange Board of India, Commissioner of Police, Criminal Bureau of Investigation, Reserve Bank of India and Union of India. In substance, the petitioners' grievance as set out in the writ petition is that they had invested huge amounts in 'Project Grape Investment Scheme' of respondent No. 1 and they were forced by respondent No. 3 to accept equity shares of respondent No. 2 in lieu of surrender of their investment in respondent No. 1 Company. They say that rosy picture of high returns was shown to them by respondent No. 3 because of which they were lured and various investors have lodged complaints with the Commissioner of Police, on 22nd December, 1997. Complaint dated 22nd December, 1997 lodged by petitioner No. 4 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Crawford Market, Mumbai, has been annexed to the petition as a sample complaint. It has been further alleged that the investors have not heard about the progress of the investigation made by the Commissioner of Police and, therefore, the petition is being filed seeking directions against the respondents, including the Commissioner of Police.

2. On hearing respective contentions of learned Counsel, and perusal of record, the facts which have come to light clearly demonstrate not only the misconceived nature of the petition but further show that, with a design, material facts were suppressed from the Court. The suppression, it seems, was done with a view to take undue advantage of the liberal approach the Court may adopt when it is brought to the notice of the Court that large number of innocent investors were duped and the agencies despite complaints were not taking requisite actions. Now we will briefly notice the facts.

3. (a) There are four petitioners. The first petitioner is an Advocate by profession. He has been appearing in this matter as petitioner No. 1 in person and also as Counsel for petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. It seems clear that the four petitioners were shareholders of respondent No. 1 as also investors having invested certain amounts with respondent No. 1 to earn profits. The exact investment of the petitioners has not been stated in the petition. However, Mr. Rizvi, who is an Advocate and petitioner No. 1 in this petition, states that he has 1800 shares of respondent No. 1 and had also deposited Rs. 80,000.00 as a deposit with respondent No. 1. He further states that petitioner No. 4 had deposited with respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 3,35,000. These deposits are stated to have been made sometime in the year 1993. Mr. Rizvi, however, is unable to state about the amounts invested/deposited by petitioners No. 2 and 3, but submits that their investments were of nominal amounts.

(b) At the time of investments with respondent No. 1, agreements were entered into between the parties i.e. the investors and respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 had also issued in favour of the investors, including the petitioners before us, the post-dated cheques of nearly four years' later date. The said post-dated cheques covered the amount of investment plus 18% interest thereupon. Respondent No. 1 had also executed conveyance deed in respect of interest in some agricultural land in favour of the investors.

(c) In the beginning of 1995, it appears that some of the investors of respondent No. 1 surrendered their investment in favour of respondent No. 1-Company and in lieu thereof they were given by respondent No. 3 the shares of respondent No. 2 Company. Respondent No. 3 was probably controlling both the Companie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document