Point of Law: Practice and Procedure - Seeking review and recall of judgment - Court had declined to interfere on account of pendency of Co. Pet. judgment is recalled on this ground alone. Court had not adjudicated on merits of petition and had only disposed it with liberty to Petitioner to raise the grievance before NCLT and for the said reason

JUDGMENT :

JYOTI SINGH, J.

CO. APPL. No. 579/2020

1. This is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking review and recall of the judgment dated 13.08.2020. Several grounds have been raised by the Petitioner for seeking a review and a perusal of the petition makes it evident that most of the grounds urged touch upon the merits of the allegations of perjury levelled by the Petitioner with respect to the alleged false statements made in counter affidavit on 24.02.2010 filed in CCP (Co.) No. 1/2009. The prayers made in the review petition are as follows:

“(1) Review and recall the judgment dated 13-8-2020.

(2) Consequently, pass orders, committing the prospective accused to criminal trial for having committed the heinous offence of perjury in relation to the proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In the alternative to prayer (2) above.

(3) Deeming it expedient to direct for conducting of criminal enquiry, direct the Ld. Registrar (Vigilance) of this Hon’ble Court to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry on the lines previously directed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 15-02-2010 passed in Cr. Misc. (Co.) No. 3 of 2008, and furnish his report within 4 weeks, or within such other reasonable time this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

(4) Pass ex-parte orders, as prayed for above.”

2. As a brief background, Crl. M. (Co.) No. 4/2019 was filed by the Petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking prosecution of the Respondents for allegedly committing perjury in relation to the proceedings before this Court by making false and contradictory averments in the counter affidavit dated 24.02.2010. While arguing the petition, Mr. Khosla learned counsel for the Petitioner had painstakingly argued that the contents of the affidavit filed by the Respondents are replete with false statements and reliance is placed on forged and fabricated documents. Gist of the alleged contradictions/false statements, referred to and relied upon by Mr. Khosla, are extracted in Para-19 of the judgment dated 13.08.2020.

3. The petition was disposed of by this Court without entering into the merits of the controversy of alleged perjury, vide judgment dated 13.08.2020. The reason that persuaded this Court to refrain from entertaining the petition on merits was a consent order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 6873/2010 with SLP (C) No. 23796-23798/2010 and Contempt Pet. (Crl.) No. 4/2013 on 08.05.2014, the relevant Para of which was extracted in the judgment and is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“21. In fact, though the learned Senior Counsel for the parties had argued the matters before us at length on the previous occasions, at the stage of conclusions of the arguments, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Cama appearing for Khosla Group suggested for an early decision of the Company Petition before the CLB as a better alternative so that at least main dispute between the parties is adjudicated upon at an early date. He was candid in his submission that the issues which are subject matter of these two Special Leave Petitions and arise out of the proceedings in the High Court, have their origin in the orders dated 31.1.2008, which is an interim order passed by the CLB. He thus, pointed out that once the Company Petition itself is decided, the issues involved therein namely whether Board meeting dated 14.12.2007 was illegal or whether Board meeting dated 30.9.2006 was barred in law would also get decided. In the process the CLB would also be in a position to decide as to whether minutes of AGM of the Company allegedly held on 30.9.2006 are forged or not and on that basis application under Section 340 Cr. P.C. which is filed before the Company Law Boared would also be taken care of by the CLB itself. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Bakshi Group immediately agreed with the aforesaid course of action suggested by Mr. Cama. We are happy that at least there is an agreement between both the parties on the procedural course of action, to give quietus