N. Kirubakaran, J.

The Courts are here to render justice. The finality of proceedings, at the earliest, is a necessity and multiplicity of the proceedings should be avoided. Whether the Courts have control over the proceedings or the parties are controlling the proceedings is an aspect to be gone into. The way in which a dispute comes to the Court and gets multiplied into many proceedings at various stages of the judicial hierarchy would speak volumes about the role of various stakeholders of the justice delivery system. The litigants, the lawyers and the Courts are part and parcel of justice delivery system. Without the assistance of one stakeholder, the justice delivery system cannot function in an orderly and in an effective manner. Without the cooperation of everyone, the litigation cannot come to a finality. Otherwise, a case would lead to many proceedings burdening the justice delivery system by increasing the pendency of cases. Therefore, it should be everybody’s endeavour to reduce and restrict the number of cases and also avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The manner in which the present case has been dealt with, for the past two decades, would demonstrate as to how the proceedings have been prolonged at various stages. It is needless to state that a party, approaching the Court and also, who aids the party, are, by design, multiplying the proceedings to see that the other party is harassed and the dispute is not resolved to achieve their selfish ends. That is how the entire justice delivery system is being hijacked and affected. Precisely, on account of this delay in disposal of cases, even the multinationals prefer arbitration outside the country, owing to lack of faith in justice delivery system in India.

This case also proves as to how the parties set up third parties to the pending proceedings to over reach orders of this Court by approaching lower judiciary viz. Sub-Court, Vellore and obtained an interim order. Another disturbing factor is the way in which the trial court without even looking into the facts and merits of the case without jurisdiction passed interim order, which is capable upsetting/staying the direction given by this Court. Unless, as observed above, all stakeholders of the system act as per law in a bona fide manner, the very foundation of justice delivery system would be shaken and reduced to nothing. When a party tries to abuse and misuse the justice delivery system, the Courts should have to deal with such a client with iron hands so that the party, who is trying to misuse the process, should be suitably either punished or imposed with costs so that he will not repeat it in future.

Such an approach would also be an eye-opener to other parties to drive home the point that Courts cannot be taken for a ride by persons, who misuse the process of law to achieve their own selfish motive. Such an approach has also become the need of the hour, considering the way in which the cases are created and multiplied, preventing the Courts from resolving the disputes.

2. The above civil revision petitions relate to the transfer of 95,418 shares in the 2nd respondent Bank. A peep into the history of the case would reveal the following:

(i) The ESSAR Group of Companies acquired 67.29% of issued share capital of the 2nd respondent in the year 1994. The Reserve Bank of India refused to acknowledge the transfer on the ground that it would amount to ESSAR Group having control of the 2nd respondent Bank. The Essar Group sold the shareholding to Sterling Group using Power of Attorney executed by the original shareholders. However, the Reserve Bank of India refused to acknowledge the transfers. In 2006, the Sterling Group had entered into an agreement with Nadar Mahajana Bank Share Investors Forum to sell their shares to the purchasers, who have to be identified by two Directors of the 2nd respondent Bank, namely, Mr. B. Ramachandra Adityan and Mr. M.G.M. Maran. The said Directors identified certain foreign investo