Hasham Investment And Trading Company Private Limited & Others vs India Awake For Transparency Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly India Awake For Transparency) & Others

B. Veerappa, J

I - FACTS OF THE CASE

The present Criminal Contempt Petition is filed by the complainants under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 15 of

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking the following reliefs:

i) Take cognizance of the offence of criminal contempt committed by the accused persons under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971;

ii) Pass orders imposing appropriate punishment against the accused persons under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for committing

the acts of criminal contempt;

iii) Restrain and injunct the accused and other group companies of the 1st accused from initiating or proceeding with any legal proceedings against the

complainants and the complainants' group before any Court, Tribunal, authority, or forum.

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the present Criminal Contempt Petition, while passing the order dated 06.07.2021 observed that the learned

single Judge while disposing off W.P.No.172/2021 filed by the first accused, by the Order dated 12.02.2021, at paragraph 27 recorded the finding as

under:

Thus, there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action as held in Udyami Evam

Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008)1 SCC 560, this amounts to

criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same.

It was further observed that, challenging the said Order dated 12.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.172/2021, the first accused preferred Writ Appeal

No.307/2021 and the Division Bench, by the judgment dated 25.03.2021, at paragraph 18, observed as under:

In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is nothing but sheer abuse of process

of law. The appellant has been unsuccessful on almost about nine occasions by filing the frivolous proceedings. Therefore, the learned

single Judge was justified in imposing the exemplary costs while dismissing the writ petition. The learned single Judge has also observed

that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action and this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all

these writ petitions is one and the same.

(underline supplied)

Though accused Nos.2 and 3 contended that, challenging the aforesaid order they preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, to substantiate the said fact, no material has been produced by them before this Court.

This Court, considering all the contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, passed a detailed Order dated 23.12.2021 holding that the

complainants have made out a case to frame Charges against accused Nos.2 and 3 and accused have not made out any case to drop the proceedings

and discharge them in the facts of the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, this Court opined that it is a fit case to frame Charge against

accused No.2(R.Subramanian/party-in-person) and accused No.3 who is also representing accused No.1- 'India Awake for Transparency'. The said

Order has reached finality.

II - CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3

This Court by the Order dated 23.12.2021 framed the Charge against accused No.2 (R.Subramanian/ party-in-person), and accused No.3

(P.Sadananda), which reads as under:

CHARGE

We, Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, do hereby charge you, accused

No.2/Party- in-Person named below:-

Mr. R. Subramanian,

Son of G.S. Ramaswami,

Aged about 54 years,

Advocate and Authorised

Representative of

India Awake for Transparency

Private Limited,

Shristhi Crescendo, 24,

Desika Road, Mylapore,

Chennai-600 004.

Also at

No.2/583, singaravelan road,

Chinna Neelangarai,

Chennai - 600 115.

and at

Plot no. 179, H.No. 12-11-1595/12

Lalitha Nagar Colony,

Hyderabad - 500 044.

as follows:-

That you being an authorised signatory and an advocate of a non-existing company-accused No.1 -'India Awake for Transparency Pvt. Ltd.,'

(Formerly 'India Awake for Transparency') has a played dual role between 23.4.2016 and 7.12.2020 and have filed repeated number of frivolous writ

petitions, writ appeals, criminal petitions, original side appeals against the complainants and others. This act of you playing a dual role and suppressing

facts amounts to abuse of process of law.

You, inspite of dismissal of all writ petitions on the same cause of action and despite of warning and prohibition by the orders of the Court, filed

several cases and continued the proceedings and your conduct is nothing but a daring ride on the Court and you have made a mockery of the judicial

process by filing one or the other frivolous legal proceedings, not only affecting the interest of public at large, but also interfering with the

administration of justice by misusing the forum of various Courts, wasting judicial time and abusing the process of law. Thereby amounting to criminal

contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, within

the cognizance of this Court.

Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-

Judge Judge

The plea of accused No.2 to the Charge is as under:

PLEA

Question: Have you heard the charge now read over and explained to you?

Answer : Yes

Question: Do you plead guilty or have you any defence to make?

Answer : Not pleaded guilty.

We, Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, hereby certify that the above charge was read over and explained to accused No.2 in the

language known to him in our presence and hearing and that the above answer is the true and correct recording of the answer given by the accused

on this day the 23rd December, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-

Judge Judge

CHARGE

We, Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru do hereby charge you, accused No.3

named below:

MR. P. SADANAND,

S/O PANJALA BIKSHAPATHI

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

VOLUNTEER AND AUTHORISED

REPRESENTATIVE OF INDIA AWAKE

FOR TRANSPARENCY PVT. LTD.,

SHRISTHI CRESCENDO, 24, DESIKA ROAD

MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004.

ALSO AT:

NO.4-12, MARUTHI NAGAR,

MALKAJGIRI

HYDERABAD - 500 060

as follows:-

That you, the Accused No.3 in the name of non-existing company -accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency Pvt. Ltd.,' (Formerly 'India Awake

for Transparency') have filed repeated number of frivolous writ petitions, writ appeals, criminal petitions, original side appeals against the complainants

and others. This act of you amounts to abuse of process of law having wasted precious public and judicial time.

You, inspite of dismissal of all writ petitions on the same cause of action and despite warning and prohibition, by the orders of the Court, filed several

cases and continued the proceedings and your conduct is nothing but a daring ride on the Court and you have made a mockery of judicial process by

filing one or the other frivolous legal proceedings not only affecting the interest of public at large, but also interfering with the administration of justice,

by misusing the forum of various Courts, wasting judicial time, thereby amounting to criminal contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section

2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, within the cognizance of this Court.

Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-

Judge Judge

The plea of accused No.3 to the Charge is as under:

PLEA

Question: You have heard the charge now read over and explained to you?

Answer : Yes

Question: Do you plead guilty or have you any defence to make?

Answer : Not pleaded guilty.

We, Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, hereby certify that the above charge was read over and explained to the accused No.3 in the

language known to him in our presence and hearing and that the above answer is the true and correct recording of the answer given by the accused

on this day the 23rd December, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-

Judge Judge

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the provisions of Rule 10(vi) of The High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981,

which reads as under:

Hearing of Cases and Trial:

(i) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(vi) If the accused pleads not guilty, the case may be taken up for trial on the same day or posted to any subsequent date as directed by the Court.

The above provision makes it clear that, if the accused pleads not guilty, the case may be taken up for trial on the same day or may be posted to any

subsequent date as directed by the Court.

However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in respect of the very same parties i.e., in the case of Azim Hasham Premji and another vs. India Awake

For Transparency and others in Criminal Appeal Nos.1177-1170/2021, by the Order dated 02.12.2021, laid down six norms to deal with the present

proceedings, which reads as under:

1) No further applications will be entertained as interlocutory applications by the Karnataka High Court in the contempt proceedings.

2) If there are still some IAs lying under objections, it will be the responsibility of the respondent to get them cleared and listed on the next

date failing which they will stand as dismissed for non-prosecution.

3) In our view, there is no question of agitating the issue of hearing before consent being granted by the Advocate General for initiation of

contempt proceedings and this is clearly an obfuscation of the issue seeking to rely on practices of different Courts.

4) Both the parties will be granted half an hour each to make their oral submissions in the matter at hand and can file a short synopsis

running into not more than three pages each. It is time the Courts put a time limit to oral submissions.

5) In the present factual scenario which is based on orders passed by Courts from time to time, there is no question of claiming trial in the

proceedings.

6) The contempt proceedings would stand concluded in the aforesaid terms and it is for the Karnataka High Court to then take a call on the

merits of the matter on which we are not commenting.

Thus, as per norm No.(5) stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court waived the compliance of the provisions of Rule 10(vi) of the High Court of

Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, therefore, question of conducting the trial in the present proceedings does not arise. It is

pertinent to note that the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on this court as well as the parties, in view of Article 141 of the

Constitution of India. Hence, posted the matter for hearing on main matter.

We have heard the learned Senior counsel for complainants, learned Senior counsel for accused No.3 and, accused No.2/party-in-person, at length.

III - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLIANANTS

Sri Ganesh.S, learned Senior Counsel for complainant No.1 and Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for complainant Nos.2 and 3, both

appearing on behalf of Sri Sandeep Huilgol, learned counsel for the complainant Nos.1 to 3 filed common synopsis as per Annexure-1 in respect of

accused No.2 (R.Subramanian/party-in-person) and Annexure-2 in respect of accused No.3 (P.Sadanand), Annexure-3 Order dated 04.01.2022 made

in W.P.No.10235/2019 and connected petitions passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature, Madras, and Annexure-4 the

Order dated 31.12.2021 passed by XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.25456/2009.

Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for complainant Nos.2 and 3 pointed out that, W.P.No.10235/2019 and connected petitions were

preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by 'India Awake for Transparency', assailing the Order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the

Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India-respondent No.2 therein, by which, the license issued to the

petitioner-accused No.1 Company was revoked/ cancelled by virtue of powers under Section 8(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. The learned single

Judge, by the Order dated 04.01.2022 dismissed the said writ petitions, holding that, a perusal of the Order passed by the respondent No.2 therein

reveals that the shell companies that were forming part of the cartel were dealt with in detail in the anticipatory bail petition filed by one of the

Directors of the concern and taking note of the shell companies, the Court had detailed the said companies which were functioning and the holding

pattern in the said companies, while dealing with Crl.O.P.No.21449/2015. Thereafter, series of litigations were filed by the petitioner before the

Karnataka High Court against respondent No.3-M/s Hasham Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., claiming defalcation of accounts and after

detailed hearing, the learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the said writ petition in W.P.No.172/2021 by imposing cost, holding

that the petition at the instance of the petitioner is a sheer abuse of process of law. It was further observed that the petitioner also filed

O.S.A.No.1/2021 before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court assailing the correctness of the Order passed in Company Application

No.185/2016 and the Division Bench, while dismissing the said appeal, observed that the petitioner is indulging in speculative litigation not only by filing

this appeal, but repeatedly over the years has been filing litigation before one Court or the other for the same cause of action. Further, the Division

Bench also refrained the petitioner from proceeding with filing any proceeding with regard to the amalgamation of three companies before any Court

or authority or forum in view of the loss of precious court time under the guise of public interest, which is nothing but an instance of gross abuse of

process of law. The Special Leave Petition in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.12031/2020 filed against the said order stood withdrawn by the petitioner. The

learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras further observed that, action for criminal contempt has been initiated,s uo motu,

against the petitioner therein by the Karnataka High Court, which is yet to see the light of the day and stepping into stopping the adjournment spree,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1177-1179/2021 (Azim Hasham Premji and another vs. India Awake for Transparency and

others-dated 02.12.2021) has deprecated the act of the petitioner in trying to obfuscate the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court by

seeking adjournment one way or the other and had framed a time schedule within which the proceedings are to complete. It was further observed that

the above facts are narrated to highlight the fact about the modus of the petitioner in initiating litigative process, which are sheer abuse of process of

law.

Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that, the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras further observed that, a

careful perusal of the Order dated 17.08.2018 reveals that the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, has taken into

consideration all the materials including information collected by the SFIO, the Enforcement Directorate, Banks, Income Tax Department, Statutory

Auditors, CBI, Commissioner of Service Tax, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and having analysed the said documents, has come to an

irrefutable conclusion that the motive behind the formation of the respondent was not fulfilled even after six years of incorporation and its objects are

not achieved till date. Accordingly, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that the Order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the 2nd

respondent therein by virtue of powers provided under Section 8(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, in no manner, suffers from the vice of any illegality

and the same deserves to be sustained.

Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the complainant No.1 herein i.e., Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited had

filed C.C.No.25456/2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru City, against Subhiksha Trading Services Limited and others in which R.Subramanian, accused No.2 herein was also accused No.2 in the

said proceedings, and by the Order dated 31.12.2021, the learned Magistrate, exercising the powers conferred under Section 255(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, convicted accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced

them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.62,63,59,893/- (Rupees sixty two crores sixty three lakhs fifty

nine thousand eight hundred and ninety three only). It was further directed that out the said fine amount, complainant is entitled to a sum of

Rs.62,63,49,893/- (Rupees sixty two crores sixty three lakhs forty nine thousand eight hundred and ninety three only) as compensation under Section

357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid to the State as fine.

Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chennai, exercising

powers under the provisions of Section 8(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, passed the Order dated 17.08.2018, wherein, at paragraph-25, it is ordered

as under:

I deem it appropriate to revoke/cancel the license issued to the respondent Company vide licence No.102249 dated 22nd June 2012 with

immediate effect and the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, is hereby directed to upload this order into the portal of the

respondent Company and direct the company to convert itself into a Non-Section 8 Company within 30 days as well as obtain change of

name from the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, to add the words ""Private Limited"" to its name. It is further directed that in

case of default in compliance of the above directions by the company, the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, is directed to

effect changes in the master data of the company by adding the words ""Private Limited"" to its name and to treat the company as a non-

section 8 company i.e., a non-Government Private Limited Company, without prejudice to the liability of the Directors of the respondent

Company for penal action in terms of Section 8(11) of the Companies Act, 2013"".

The aforesaid Order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chennai, when

challenged by the accused, the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by the Order dated 04.01.2022 passed in

W.P.No.10235/2019 and connected petitions, confirmed the said Order dated 17.08.2018.

Learned Senior Counsel further contended that, the Company Master Data depicts the name of the Company as ""India Awake for Transparency

Private Limited"". In spite of the same, Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Original Side Appeals were filed by the accused persons showing the

company name as ""India Awake for Transparency"", though the company was not existing after passing of the Order dated 17.08.2018 by the Regional

Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chennai. Thereby, a non- existing Company/accused filed litigations on the basis of the

resolution passed at the meeting of Board of Directors of 'India Awake for Transparency' on 01.06.2015, wherein, accused No.3-P.Sadanand, among

two others was authorized to act jointly or severally to institute, commence, prosecute, file, present, carry on or defend or resist and conduct any

complaint including Criminal Complaint, Arbitral proceeding, suit, legal or other proceedings of any kind for recovery or realization of monies or assets

to which the Company is entitled to, Company Petitions of all kinds both in respect of matters of the company itself and in respect of those of counter

party companies including but not limited to petitions for winding up of debtor companies or in respect of mismanagement and oppression by investee

companies, all actions or other proceedings as may be necessary for and on behalf of the company and to defend all forms of legal proceedings and

claims including but not restricted to Criminal and Civil proceedings or such other claims including proceedings whether at Company Courts, Company

Law Board or before any Courts of law, Tribunals, Police, Arbitral forum, statutory authority or Agency and other law enforcement agencies and to

institute, initiate, continue, commence, resist, defend and compromise as necessary in all manner of proceedings before any governmental and

statutory authorities and corporations, etc.,

Learned Senior Counsel further contended that, W.P.No.3635/2020 was filed on 07.02.2020 by 'India Awake for Transparency' which Company

was not in existence as on the date of filing of the said writ petition, in view of the Order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the Regional Director (Southern

Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs. At paragraph 50 of the Memorandum of the said writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner-'India Awake for

Transparency', that, 'the other defence of the 11th respondent (Mr.A.H.Premji) and his entities is as though the proceedings are mala fide as the

petitioner is only a device being used by Mr.R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., had dealings with the 12th

respondent (M/s Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited). The petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back, as the

said Mr.R.Subramanian is a volunteer of the petitioner and is the very person who has filed the affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's

for recall of merger and has appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the

petitioner as Advocate of the petitioner. The role of the said person is evidently not suppressed nor in any manner sought to be hidden. Therefore, he

would contended that the accused No.2 not only authorized signatory, but also acted as an advocate on dual role which is impermissible. Thereby, this

Court framed the Charge in a right prospective. Therefore, the accused persons are liable to be punished for Criminal Contempt. Learned Senior

counsel, further, reiterated the averments made in the synospis about the punishment to be initiated against accused Nos.2 and 3.

While reiterating the submissions made in the form of synopsis filed on 06.01.2022, learned Senior Counsel contended that the Charges framed

against accused No.2 are fully covered by the specific and unequivocal findings of the judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.12073/2020, 12769/2020,

13838/2020 and 172/2021, W.A.Nos.229/2021, 384/2021, 228/2021 and 307/2021 and Company Application No.185/2016 and OSA No.1/2021, which

have been referred to and discussed in detail in the Order dated 23.12.2021. Thereby, accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable for criminal contempt and

thereby, charges framed against accused Nos.2 and 3 are proved.

Learned Senior Counsel for the complainants further contended that, not less than 10(ten) distinct proceedings were filed challenging the legality of

the amalgamation of three Azim Premji Group companies with another group company, even though no outside shareholder or creditor was in any

way affected. The challenge was on an absolutely frivolous and absurd ground viz., that as the amalgamating companies were shareholders of each

other, therefore, all their properties belonged to the Central Government because of ""bona vacantia"" under Article 296 of the Constitution of India.

The Central Government passed an order dated 10.11.2017 and specifically held that the properties of the amalgamating companies did not belong to

the Central Government. The Division Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 25.03.2021 passed in W.A.No.307/2021 specifically held that, after

the said Central Government Order dated 10.11.2017, it was not possible to understand how the said amalgamation could possibly be challenged on the

ground of bona vacantia. Though the said Central Government Order dated 10.11.2017 was served on the contemnors' advocate, Private Criminal

Complaints were filed by the contemnors without disclosing and by suppressing the said Central Government Order dated 10.11.2017 and again

alleging that the assets of the amalgamating companies were the properties of the Central Government, because of bona vacantia and that the said

amalgamation therefore, constituted criminal breach of trust. As the Central Government Order dated 10.11.2017 was suppressed, the Criminal Court

was misled into taking cognizance and issuing summons to the complainants, setting the criminal law in motion against respectable law abiding citizens,

by suppressing the facts and by filing completely frivolous complaints and petitions which is the most egregiously reprehensible kind of criminal

contempt.

It is further contended that there are 42 (forty two) distinct proceedings initiated by 'India Awake for Transparency' against the complainants at

the instance of accused No.2, after the complainants initiated prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against accused No.2

and the Company of which he was the Managing Director i.e., Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., for dishonour of cheques. It is further contended that,

accused No.2-R.Subramanian is the Alter Ego of ""India Awake for Transparency"" in whose name all the various legal proceedings were filed.

Licence granted to ""India Awake for Transparency"" to drop the words ""Private Limited"" from its name was revoked by the Regional Director

(Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India by an Order dated 17.08.2018, which when challenged by the accused in

W.P.No.10235/2019, came to be dismissed by the Order dated 04.01.2022. Filing repeated petitions in the name of non-existing Company-""India

Awake for Transparency"" without using the words ""Private Limited"" is nothing but a brazen suppression of identity and impersonation done only with a

view to mislead the judiciary. Further, 'India Awake for Transparency' had only four share holders i.e., (i)Analog Financial Services Private Limited,

(ii)Analog Stock Broking Services Private Limited, (iii)Intel Registry Services Private Limited, and (iv) Lucky View Home Finance Private Limited.

The Madras High Court, by its judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed in Crl.O.P.No.21449/2015, has specifically found that, these four shareholder

companies were established and controlled by accused No.2-R.Subramanian. Further, R.Subramanian was appointed as authorized representative of

India Awake for Transparency"" vide resolution dated 01.07.2015 and it was continued until December 2020, when the authorization was replaced in

the Court records by a vakalathnama in favour of R.Subramanian. Moreover, 3(three) out of the said 4(four) shareholder companies of 'India Awake

for Transparency' have been struck off by the Registrar of Companies as being dormant and inactive companies and for non-compliance with the

provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The Directors of 'India Awake for Transparency'-Mr. Rajender Kumar and Mrs. Adiseshan Srimathi are

disqualified to act as Directors and their appointment as Additional Directors was not regularized in the AGM of 'India Awake for Transparency'.

It is further contended that, in every single legal proceeding, R. Subramanian has appeared as an Advocate. 'India Awake for Transparency' is a

mere shell company as is clear from its last available balance sheet, as it has no income and negligible expenditure, and does not even possess a bank

account. All these indisputable facts on record make it abundantly clear that accused No.2-R.Subramanian is the Alter Ego of 'India Awake for

Transparency', that 'India Awake for Transparency' is only a corporate facade used by accused No.2 and that all the legal proceedings filed in the

name of 'India Awake for Transparency' are at his behest and instance and are financed and controlled by him, as he is the 'directing mind' of 'India

Awake for Transparency'.

Learned Senior Counsel for the complainants further contended that, accused No.3-P.Sadanand has verified the pleadings in each of the 42

proceedings filed by 'India Awake for Transparency' against various entities in the WIPRO/Premji group. Accused No.3 is described as a mere

'volunteer' of 'India Awake for Transparency' and not its Employee, Director or Principal Officer. The term 'volunteer' is unknown to law and

accused No.3 had no authority in law to verify any pleading on behalf of 'India Awake for Transparency', having regard to the provisions of Order

XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21 of the Companies Act, 2013. The verification of a large number of pleadings over a

period of several years without any authority to do so and thereby becoming a willing instrument in the hands of accused No.2 to commit gross abuse

of the legal system, by itself constitutes criminal contempt committed by accused No.3. Therefore, it is a clearly case of joint participation and co-

operation, if not conspiracy between accused Nos.2 and 3 to commit criminal contempt of Court in order to wreak vengeance on WIPRO/Premji

Group, for filing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against accused No.2. Accused No.3 has continued to represent

as volunteer and filed numerous petitions and applications in the same name, style and capacity even after this Court categorically holding that he is

incapable of verifying any pleadings as volunteer, in OSA No.1/2021. It is further contended that there is another distinct and independent reason why

the verification of pleadings by accused No.3 in the said 42 proceedings constitutes criminal contempt. The accused No.3 has stated on oath before

the Criminal Court that he does not know English or Kannada and that he only knows Telugu. Consequently, it is not possible for him to be acquainted

with the pleadings, facts, allegations and contentions raised in each legal proceeding which is in English. Thereby, accused No.3 has interfered with

and obstructed the administration of justice and the said act is squarely covered by the definition of 'criminal contempt' under Section 2(c) of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, sought to allow the contempt proceedings and convict accused Nos.2 and 3 under the provisions of Section

12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Sri Ganesh.S, learned Senior Counsel for complainant No.1, reiterating the contentions urged by Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for

complainant Nos.2 and 3, contended that, knowingfully well that the licence of the 'India Awake for Transparency' was cancelled and was directed to

be named as 'India Awake for Transparency Private Limited' by the Order dated 17.08.2018 of the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of

Corporate Affairs, still, in the name of non existing Company, accused Nos.2 and 3 filed several writ petitions, post 17.08.2018. He would further

contend that the Orders passed in the Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Original Side Appeals, it has been specifically held that the conduct of the

accused Nos.2 and 3 amounts to misuse and abuse of process of law and they have filed repeated petitions only to wreak personal vengeance against

complainants. He further contended that this Court, while framing Charge, passed a detailed Order dated 23.12.2021 and has considered all the

aspects of the matter holding that the complainants have made out a case to frame Charge and accordingly, framed Charge against accused Nos.2

and 3 and the same is in proper perspective and therefore, accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be punished for criminal contempt. Therefore, learned

Senior Counsel sought to allow the present Criminal Contempt Petition and to punish accused Nos.2 and 3 in terms of the provisions of Section 12 of

the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

IV - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED No.3

Per contra, Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Shakeer Abbas, learned counsel for accused No.3 contended that withdrawal of

W.P.No.3635/2020 and filing of different writ petitions on different cause of action does not amount to abuse of process of Court. He would further

contend that the 2nd Charge framed by this Court is not available since, after disposal of the writ petitions, the accused has not filed any writ petition

before this Court. He further contended that with regard to first Charge, the accused No.3 is neither the Manager nor Secretary or any other Office

Bearer of the accused No.1 Company as stipulated under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, no criminal contempt is made

out against accused No.3. He further contended that after framing of Charge, Rule 11 of The High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court

Proceedings) Rules, 1981, comes into force and therefore, question of filing synopsis by the complainants and addressing arguments would not arise.

Therefore, complainants should not have been allowed to file synopsis and address the arguments. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the

averments made against accused No.3 in paragraph 17 of the Memorandum of Criminal Contempt Petition does not amount criminal contempt as

contemplated under Section 12(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He further contended that no criminal contempt is made against accused

No.3. Mere filing petitions to agitate the rights available to a person will not amount to criminal contempt. The orders passed by the learned single

Judge confirmed by the Division Bench have not reached finality, since the same have been subject matters of Special Leave to Appeal pending

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereby, accused No.3 has not committed any act of contempt of Court.

Further, Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for accused No.3, reiterating the averments made in the short synopsis dated 06.01.2022,

contended that, accused No.1 was by its articles, a private limited company from its formation in the year 2012. Its name would have been 'India

Awake for Transparency Private Limited', but however, as it was granted permission to not use 'Private Limited' it was allowed to be called 'India

Awake for Transparency'. Every Company is identified in the records of the Registrar of Companies by a CIN i.e., Corporation Identification

Number. This is assigned at formation of company and continues till company is struck off from the register of Companies maintained under the

Companies Act. When accused No.1 was formed as 'India Awake for Transparency', its CIN was U93000TN2012NPL 087115. After its name was

changed to 'India Awake for Transparency Pvt. Ltd.,' also, same CIN continues. If accused No.1 converts to Public Limited Company and becomes

'India Awake for Transparency Ltd.,' then also CIN will be the same. CIN has nothing to do with private/public status or even with Section 8 of the

Companies Act, 2013. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that there being no evidence on record to show that accused No.1 is struck off from

register of Companies, the Company continues to exist in the eye of law albeit as 'India Awake for Transparency' and goes with the same CIN.

Even the cause title of this case itself reflects that it was only a name change of 'India Awake for Transparency'. If the Order dated 17.08.2018 was

not to be treated as void, the mistake would be to the extent of not adding the words 'Private Limited' to the name 'India Awake for Transparency' in

the cause title. The call to treat the order dated 17.08.2018 as void being that of the client, accused No.2 cannot be at fault for the same as the entity

continued to exist and only the manner of representation of its name was in question.

Learned Senior counsel for accused No.3 further contended that, there is no issue of existence of accused No.1 raised in any judicial order except

in OSA No.1/2021 in which the said findings are made per incurium and are bound to be ignored.

It is further contended that, the complainants and their associates have committed serious economic offences and violated the provisions of Companies

Act, PMLA, SEBI Act, RBI Act and Income Tax Act and given their clout and influence the matter needed Court monitored multi disciplinary

investigation. The issues in respect of the same along with the issue of misappropriation of assets of three companies whose assets were bona

vacantia and in the control of the complainants, were the issues raised in PIL filed by accused No.1 in W.P.No.3635/2020, which was dismissed as

withdrawn, since the Court held that it was not maintainable. Admittedly, the Order passed in the Writ Petition which was adjudicated on merits is

subject matter of Appeal and all the matters are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits and the question of any proceedings being

frivolous would not arise. It is further contended that the entire issues raised in W.P.No.3635/2020 are before the Apex Court in WP(C)

No.1079/2021 and WP(C) No.1161/2021. The correctness of the orders in the Writ Appeals and OSA are also before the Apex Court in Special

Leave Petitions filed and are pending. The entire Criminal Contempt Proceedings are onlym alafide proceedings of complainants to try and evade

prosecution for their offences and is bound to be dismissed in limine acquitting accused No.3. Therefore, sought to dismiss the Criminal Contempt

Petition. Learned Senior Counsel for accused No.3 further submits that, if this Court comes to the conclusion that accused No.3 is found guilty of the

Charges levelled against him, accused No.3 tenders unconditional apology and he may be pardoned.

In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for accused No.3 relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench Gwalior reported in (2007)14 SCC 126, paragraphs 20, 21.

(ii) The Bangalore Development Authority by its Commissioner vs. Gururaj and another reported in ILR 2007 KAR 5184, paragraphs 13 to 16.

V - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY ACCUSED NO.2/

PARTY-IN-PERSON

Sri R.Subramanian, accused No.2/party-in-person filed short synopsis dated 06.01.2022 and contended that, no document is produced by the

complainants to prove that accused No.2 has

acted dual role as signatory to accused No.1 and as an advocate. He was authorized by accused No.1 on 01.07.2015 and at that time, he was not

enrolled as an advocate and he was not practicing. He was enrolled as an advocate only on 30.12.2015, but he was not acting as advocate to accused

No.1 till March/April 2017. In April 2016, when accused No.2 was not acting as advocate to accused No.1, accused No.2 acted as representative of

accused No.1 in respect of Company Application No.185/2016 for recall of order of merger dated 26.03.2015 and signed the pleadings and that would

not amount to contempt. Accused No.2 further contended that, a firm of advocates were given vakalath to appear in the said C.A.No.185/2016 and

they were appearing till December 2020. From December 2020, he started to appear in the said matter, after application to substitute accused No.3 as

representative of accused No.1 was filed in C.A.No.185/2016 and the same was made known to the learned Company Judge. In March 2017, when

accused No.1 Company wanted to engage him as advocate, accused No.1 was informed that accused No.2 will not be able to act as their authorized

representative from then on. The Board Resolution of accused No.1 dated 07.01.2020 filed in C.A.No.185/2016 records the same.

Accused No.2 further contended that there is not even a single document on record to show that he did any act as authorized representative of

accused No.1 after March 2017, nor any document to show that accused No.2 acted as advocate of accused No.1 before March 2017. As such, the

Charge that accused No.2 played dual role from 23.04.2016 till 07.12.2020 is not proved. There is no finding by any Court holding that accused No.2

played dual role from 23.04.2016 to 07.12.2020. The contents of paragraph 50 of W.P.No.3635/2020 only sets out that accused No.2 is a volunteer of

accused No.1 and not that he is authorized person of accused No.1. The code of conduct only bars persons having executive authority in an

organization from acting as its advocate and the same does not apply to members and volunteers. Accused No.2 further contended that mere fact that

accused No.1 chose to file substitute application only on 07.12.2020 even though it was notified of the withdrawal of accused No.2 as representative

in March 2017, cannot prove the Charge of dual role. It is further contended that the name of accused No.1 would have been 'India Awake for

Transparency Private Limited' but, however, as it was granted permission not to use 'Private Limited' it was allowed to be called 'India Awake for

Transparency'. He further contended that accused No.1 exists even today. Post 17.08.2018, if the Order of that date was not to be treated as void,

the mistake would be to the extent of not adding the words 'Private Limited' to the name 'India Awake for Transparency' in the cause title. But in

each proceeding filed, the fact in this regard were duly disclosed and there was no suppression. The call to treat the order dated 17.08.2018 as void

being that of the client, accused No.2 cannot be at fault for the same as the entity continued to exist and only the manner of representation of its name

was in question.

Accused No.2 further contended that there is no issue of existence of accused No.1 raised in any judicial order. The Charge that accused No.2

played dual role and suppressed facts and such act amounts to abuse of process of law, automatically does not survive the position that accused No.2

played no dual role and, no act of suppression by accused No.2 is set out. He further contended that once the role of accused No.2 is limited to that of

a pure advocate with no dual role, the scope of dragging him into these proceedings is very limited as it can only be in respect of matters where the

advocate can have some direct responsibility as in the case of suppression or scandalous pleadings. In the present case, there was no repetitive writ

petition on same cause of action. In W.P.No.172/2021 it has been erroneously held that the writ petitions are being filed on same cause of action.

When the reliefs are different and the main respondent itself is different in each writ petition, the question of there being repetition does not arise at all.

He further contended that no proceedings have been adjudicated on merits and as such, question of any proceedings being frivolous would not arise.

The entire reason for complainants seeking prayer (c) in the present petition is as they cannot face any proceedings on merit. The learned single Judge

and the Coordinate Bench deciding W.A.No.307/2021 erred in not noting that the ratio of Sarguja Transport was wholly inapplicable as it was

applicable only to High Courts where Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to writ petitions and since, in this High Court, Code of Civil

Procedure is wholly applicable to writ proceedings, the decision has no relevance.

The accused No.2 further contended that absolutely there is no case made out against accused No.2 by the complainants and therefore, sought to

drop the entire Criminal Contempt Proceedings on the ground that the entire criminal contempt proceedings are only malafide proceedings of the

complainants to try and evade prosecution for their offences and is bound to be dismissed in limine acquitting accused No.2. Further, accused No.2

submits that, if this Court comes to the conclusion that accused No.2 is found guilty of the Charges levelled against him, he tenders unconditional

apology and he may be pardoned.

VI - POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as accused No.2/Party-in-person, the points that

would arise for our consideration in the present Criminal Contempt Petition are as under:

(i) Whether the charge levelled against Accused Nos.2 and 3 is proved and that the said accused persons have committed criminal contempt of court

within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, in the facts and

circumstances of the case ?

(ii) Whether the Accused Nos.2 and 3 have made out a case to drop the criminal contempt proceedings and discharge them, in the facts and

circumstances of the case ?

We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned senior Counsel for the complainants; learned senior counsel

for the Accused No.3; and the Accused No.2/party-in-person and perused the material on record carefully.

VII - CONSIDERATION

It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the complainants that though Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' came into non-

existence by the order dated 17.8.2018 passed by the Regional Director under the provisions of Section 8(6) of the Companies Act, still Accused No.3

filed repeated number of writ petitions, writ appeals, wherein Accused No.2/party-in-person was the authorized signatory and representative of

Accused No.1, who played dual role of authorized signatory of Accused No.1 - company as well as advocate from 23.4.2016 to 7.12.2020 against the

complainants and others. Hence, the conduct of Accused Nos.2 and 3 is nothing but abuse of process of law amounting to criminal contempt.

It is the specific case of Accused Nos.2 and 3 that in order to protect public money, certain Writ Petitions were filed in the name of Accused No.1

by Accused No.3 and represented by Accused No.2, contending that the order dated 17.8.2018 passed by the Regional Director (Southern region),

Ministry of Corporate Affairs is non-est and without jurisdiction and therefore, the writ petitions, writ appeals, Original Side Appeal filed against the

complainants and others, are in the interest of public at large. Accused No.2 has acted only as a counsel on behalf of Accused Nos.1 and 3 to

discharge his professional duties. Therefore, they would contend there is no criminal contempt made out against them as alleged.

It is an undisputed fact that in the meeting of Board of Directors of 'India Awake for Transparency' dated 1.7.2015, it was resolved that Accused

No.2 (R. Subramanian s/o G.S. Ramaswami, residing at No.2/583, Singaravelan Road, 1st cross, Chinna Neelangarai, Chennai) be and is hereby

authorized to act on behalf of the company to do all acts in furtherance of its main objects as set out in the Memorandum of Company and for this

purpose to do all things necessary including but not limited to the acts there under. The said resolution was only signed by Accused No.2 as authorized

signatory to Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency'.

It is also not in dispute that the Accused No.2, who is the authorized signatory of Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' filed Company

Application No.185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014, which came to be dismissed on 17.3.2021. The cause title of the said company application

reads as under:

INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY A NOT FOR PROFIT COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES

ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE D-1, SRISHTI CRESENDO, NO.24, DESIKA ROAD, CHENNAI -600004 TAMILNADU,

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. R. SUBRAMANIAN.

(BY SRI R. SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE)

It is also relevant to state at this stage that in Company Application No.185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014, an affidavit filed by Accused

No.2/R. Subramanian. The affidavit reads as under:

Affidavit

I, R. Subramanian s/o Ramanswamy aged 49 years residing at No.2/583 Singaravelan Road, I Cross Chinna Neelankari, Chennai 600115,

now at Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

I am the Authorised Singatory of the Applicant Company, and I am conversant with the facts of the case and am able to depose to the

matters pertaining thereto.

…...

……

The learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the said Company Application No.185/2016 on 17.3.2021, has opined at paragraph 7(n) as

under:

7(n) A perusal of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court clearly indicates that the applicant is guilty of abuse of process of law and his

conduct disentitles him from any relief in the present petition also. In fact, as noticed by this Court in the earlier orders, the claim of the

applicant has been rejected not only by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs but also by the Reserve Bank of India. Under these circumstances

also, I am of the considered opinion that the present application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

It is an undisputed fact that Accused No.1 - Company represented by its authorized signatory - Mr. P. Sadanand/Accused No.3 filed Original Side

Appeal No.1/2021 against the order dated 17.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Company Application No.185/2016 in

Company Petition No.182/2014. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraphs - 21, 23, 24 25 and 27 specifically held as under;

That apart, we find that in the instant case, the application filed by the appellant India Awake for Transparency before the learned

Company Judge in Company Application No.185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014 of this court seeking recall of order dated

26.03.2015 was by its authorised signatory, Sri.R. Subramanian, who is also the counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal. When

we queried Sri.R.Subramanian, he stated that he is now appearing as an advocate and Sri.P. Sadanand is the authorised signatory and

there is no impediment for him to represent for the appellant/Company.

We find considerable force in the submission of learned Senior counsel inasmuch as when a company is seeking to file an appeal or a

proceeding, then the Board of Directors of the company has to authorise a person who would verify the pleadings or file the proceeding on

behalf of the Company as its authorised signatory at the risk in toto. In the instant case, it is not known as to how a “volunteer†of the

appellant-company could have volunteered to verify the pleadings by the verifing affidavit and file this appeal. The status of this volunteer

Sri. P.Sadanand vis-a-vis the Company is not known. It is also not known whether he is a shareholder, director or an employee of the

company.

At any rate, there can be no authorisation for him to vounteer to file this appeal. On this ground also, we find that the appeal filed by the

appellant is not in accordance with the legal procedural requirement and hence cannot be entertained.

Despite the above circumstances, we have considered the order of the learned Single Judge in light of the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 and we find that the learned single Judge was justified in

dismissing the application filed in Company Application No.185/2016 seeking recall of the order dated 26.03.2015, by which, the scheme of

the amalgamation of the three companies with respondent No.1 was sanctioned in Company Petition No.182/2014 as the appellant had no

locus standi to file such an application hence, we find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is hence liable to be dismissed.

Before parting with this judgment, we would like to remind ourselves that in recent years there has emerged a trend of filing speculative

litigation before various courts of law, not just in the Court of first instance, but also in the High Court. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure

that such speculative litigation is weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing it to be festered and thereby coming in the way of

genuine litigants seeking justice in their cases. We find that this is one stark instance of speculative litigation being filed not just by this

appeal, but repeatedly over the years has been stated, filing of litigation has been firstly, before the Court Hon’ble of the Chief Justice

in the form of a public interest litigation and thereafter in separate writ petitions on the same cause of action after withdrawing

unconditionally the public interest litigation and not being successful in those cases and not being able to get over the order passed by the

Union of India, dated 10.11.2017, a litigative mechanism has been devised to indirectly question the said order by way of seeking recall of

the order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the learned Company Judge of this Court sanctioning the amalgamation of the three companies with

respondent No.1 this is without having any locus standi to do so.

But, having regard to the checkered history with regard to this controversy, we refrain the appellant herein, India Awake for

Transparency, from filing any proceeding with regard to the amalgamation of the three companies with respondent No.1 herein in future

before any Court or authority or forum. We are constrained to pass such an order having regard to the loss of precious public time of this

court and other courts by raking up such a controversy by the appellant company, without having any locus standi to do so. The same is an

instance of gross abuse of the process of law as well as of this Court.

Though learned Senior counsel for Accused No. 3 and Accused No.2/party-in-person submitted that against the said order passed by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court, an SLP has been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no material is produced including the interim order, if

any granted by the Hon'be Supreme Court.

It is also not in dispute that Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' represented by its authorized signatory - Accused No.3 - P.

Sadanand filed Writ Petition No.3635/2020 (PIL), wherein at paragraph-50 it is specifically stated as under:

The Petitioner further states that the other defence of the 11th Respondent and his entities is as though the proceedings are mala fide as

the Petitioner is only a device being used by Mr. R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd had

dealings with the 12th Respondent. The Petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back as the said Mr. R.Subramanian is a

Volunteer of the Petitioner and is the very person who has filed the Affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's for recall of

merger and has appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the

Petitioner as Advocate of the Petitioner. The role of the said person is evidently not Suppressed nor in any manner sought to be hidden. The

law being well settled that mere claim of mala fide is no defence to a charge founded on evidence the said claims are mere red herring to try

and distract the judicial proceedings. The present proceedings are not driven by mala fide but the sheer scale of the fraud got effected with

connivance of all who were to protect public interest. The Petitioner states that many scams be it the coal scam or the 2G scam have come to

light only through actions of persons adversarial to the persons in power. That such persons would be the watchdogs when regulators fail

to act is well recognised. The petitioner states that in any event there is no requirement for it to be a front for any other as what the issues

herein can be raised by any one in public interest.

(emphasis supplied)

The said writ petition came to be dismissed as it was unconditionally withdrawn on 1.10.2020.

It is also not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - company, Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 -

Sri R. Subramanian, as its advocate filed one more writ petition in W.P. No.12073/2020. The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing both the

parties while dismissing the said writ petition, has observed at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 as under:

In the PIL, Director of Enforcement was arrayed as respondent No.7. As recorded hereinabove, petitioner had sought for a direction

against respondents No. 1 to 10 therein to constitute a multi-Disciplinary Team to investigate and prosecute Mr. Azim Premji and his

associates. Prayer clause (i) in this writ petition is for a direction against the against the Enforcement Directorate to register a case for

offences of money laundering arising out of the scheduled offences in Special Case No.69/2020. The trial of the said case has been stayed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, relied upon by Shri. Nagesh, the Apex Court has held that when some one has a

grievance that his FIR has not been registered and he rushes to High Court with a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,

High Court should not encourage this practice and ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his

alternative remedy.

Admittedly, as averred in paragraph No.20 of this writ petition, petitioner has filed a petition under Section 190(1) (c) read with Section

156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special PMLA Court.

Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeal No.229/2021 was preferred by the Accused No.1 - India Awake for

Transparency represented by A3 - P. Sadanand as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 - R. Subramanian as its advocate and the Division

Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 30th March 2021 while dismissing the writ appeal, has observed at paragraph-9 as under:

The learned Counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the entire litigation against the respondents makes it clear that there is

a deliberate attempt to ensure that the case registered under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not proceed. He has further brought to the

notice of this Court that against the order passed by this Court in the matter of amalgamation of companies, a Company Application was

preferred i.e. C.A. 185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014 and the same has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court on 17.03.2021. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has promoted as many as 49 Companies as

observed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in an anticipatory bail application preferred by R. Subramanian. However, the bail

petition was dismissed by the Madras High Court vide its order dated 18.09.2015."" (emphasis supplied)

It is also not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency, Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand as its authorized

signatory and Accused No.2 - Mr. R. Subramanian as its advocate filed Writ Petition No.13838/2020. The learned Single Judge of this court dismissed

the said writ petition on 8.1.2021, which was the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.228/2021 filed by Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand as its authorized

signatory and Accused No.2 - Mr. R. Subramanian as its advocate.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing both the parties by the judgment dated 30.3.2021 while dismissing the said writ appeal, has

specifically observed at paragraphs 3 and 7 as under:

The core issue in the aforesaid writ petition was arising Out of the amalgamation of three companies namely M/s. Vidya Investment and

Trading Company Private Limited, M/s. Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Lime and M/s Napean Trading and Investment

Company Private Limited and the Present appellant has initially preferred a public interest litigation registered as W.P.No.3635/2020 with a

prayer inter alia for issuance of writ of mandamus and a direction to respondents No.1 to 10 therein to constitute a multi disciplinary

investigation team to investigate and prosecute Mr.A.H.Premji and his associates for the offences alleged to have been committed by them.

The public interest litigation was withdrawn unconditionally.

The learned Counsel has vehemently argued litigation against the respondents makes it clear that There is a deliberate attempt to ensure

that the case registered under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not proceed. He has further brought to the notice of this Court that

against the order passed by, this Court in the matter of amalgamation of companies, a Company Application was preferred i.e. C.A.

185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014 and the same has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on

17.03.2021.It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has promoted as many as 49 Companies as observed by

the High Court of Judicature at Madras in an anticipatory bail application preferred by R Subramanian. However, the bail petition was

dismissed by the Madras High Court vide its order dated 18.09.2015.

According to learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 as well as Accused No.2/party-in-person, against the said judgment, an SLP was preferred

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is still pending for adjudication. But, no material produced before this Court in support of the same.

It is also not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency, Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand filed Writ Petition

No.12769/2020 (T-IT) and the learned Single Judge of this court by the order dated 26.2.2021 dismissed the said writ petition, which was the subject

mater of Writ Appeal No. 384/2021 (T-IT) filed by Accused No.1 represented by Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its

advocate, which came to be dismissed on 21.4.2021. It is stated at the Bar by the learned senior advocate for Accused No.3 as well as Accused

No.2/party-in-person that against the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, they have preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

the same is pending for consideration, but no documents produced in support of the same.

It is also relevant to state that in the name of Accused No.1, Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand filed Writ Petition No.172/2021 before this Court

represented by Accused No.2 - Sri R. Subramanian, as its advocate, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court by the detailed order dated 12th

February, 2021 dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and specifically observed at paragraphs - 26, 27 and

28 as under:

In W.P.No.3635/2020 (India Awake. Transparency Vs. Union of India and others), the PIL filed in this Court, petitioner has sought

directions against the respondents therein based on his representation/ complaints dated January 30, 2020 and February 3, 2020. Though

the dates of complaint is different, the subject matter is again the same i.e., transactions involving three Companies namely Vidya Investment

and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., Regal Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and Napean Trading and Investment Company Pvt. Ltd.

(paragraph No.10 of the writ petition).

Thus, there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action. As held in Udyami, this

amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same.

In the result, this writ petition is not only devoid of merits, but an absolute abuse of process of law. Though petitioner was forewarned,

he chose to argue this writ petition as a stand-alone petition wasting the valuable time of this Court to deal with such frivolous cases.

Therefore, imposition of punitive cost is necessary.

Against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeal No.307/2021 was preferred in the name of Accused No.1 by Accused

No.3 represented by Accused No.2 as its advocate, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 25.3.2021 while dismissing the

appeal, has observed at paragraph-18 as under:

in the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law.

The appellant has been unsuccessful on almost about nine occasions by filing the frivolous proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was

justified in imposing the exemplary costs while dismissing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has also observed that petitioner is indulging in

forum shopping on the very same cause of action and this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the

same.

(underline supplied)

Learned senior Counsel for Accused No.3 as well as Accused No.2/R. Subramanian â€" party-in-person submit that an SLP filed against the said

order is still pending for adjudication, but no documents are produced in support of the same.

It is an undisputed fact that the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs by exercising his powers under the provisions of Section 8(6) of

the Companies Act has revoked/ cancelled the licence issued to Accused No.1/India Awake for Transparency. The material on record clearly depicts

that the proceedings were initiated in the name of non-existent company i.e., India Awake for Transparency represented by Accused No.3 as its

authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its advocate in some matters and Accused No.2 as its authorized signatory as well as Advocate/party-in-

person in some other matters as under:-

Company Application No.185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014 dismissed on 17.03.2021.

Original Side Appeal No. 1/2021 dismissed on 22.4.2021

Writ Petition No.3636/2020 dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally on 1.10.2020

Writ Petition No.12073/2020 dismissed on 21.1.2021

Writ Appeal 229/2021 dismissed on 30.3.2021

Writ Petition No.12769/2020 dismissed on 26.2.2021

Writ Appeal No.384/2021 dismissed on 21.4.2021

Writ Petition No.13838/2020 dismissed on 8.1.2021

Writ Petition No.172/2021 dismissed on 12.2.2021 with costs of Rs.10,00,000/-

Writ Appeal No. 307/2021 dismissed on 25.3.2021

In view of the above, it is clear that the 2nd Accused besides being the one who is representing the 1st accused before the Courts of Law and

other forums as its Advocate, is also the authorized representative of the 1st Accused-Company to act on behalf of the 1st accused in the actions that

are being brought by it as well as the one that are brought against it. In other words, the 2nd accused has been performing the dual role in relation the

matters pertaining to the 1st Accused-Company. In fact in the meeting of the Board of Directors of Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency,

held on 7.1.2020, it is resolved that the authorization dated 1.7.2015 issued to Accused No.2 â€" Mr. R. Subramanian shall stand withdrawn, in full. As

such, Accused NO.2 was authorized signatory of the Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency till 7.1.2020. Knowing fully well that Accused

No.1 is a non-existent company and authorization dated 1.7.2015 issued to Accused No.2 stood withdrawn on 7.1.2020, Accused NO.2 has appeared

in all the cases stated supra and failed to succeed either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench. Accused No.2 acted as an

advocate and continued as an authorized signatory of the Accused No.1 ( non-existing company) between 23.4.2016 and 7.12.2020. Accused No.2

had filed vakalathnama on 7.2.2020 in the Writ Petition No.3635/2020, thereby he has given up all his professional ethics as contemplated under the

provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Being an advocate and party-in-person, Accused No.2 has misused the process of the court and harassed the

complainants and others repeatedly and wasted the precious public & judicial time of the Court, thereby the accused No.3 filed number of writ

petitions on behalf of Accused No.1 - company which is non-existing and continuously was represented by A2 - party in person, thereby it amounts to

daring ride on the Court. It is also to be stated that carrying on proceedings which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, also constitute an abuse of

process.

The material on record clearly depicts that the 1st accused is completely under the control of the 2nd accused, who has personally planned,

organized and instituted various legal proceedings and committed the various acts which constitute criminal contempt. The accused Nos.2 and 3

directly and indirectly continue to file further legal proceedings on the same subject and in the same manner though the same is deprecated and held to

be illegal by this Court. The conduct of the Accused No.3 in filing several writ petitions, writ appeals and Original Side Appeal in the name of

Accused No.1, a non-existing company and Accused No.2 appearing as its advocate, is nothing but indulging in forum shopping on the same cause of

action and amounts to criminal contempt as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 307/2021 dated 25.3.2021, which has

reached finality.

It is also not in dispute that learned Advocate General by his letter dated 10.6.2021 has given consent to the applicants/complainants viz., Hasham

Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Wipro Limited and Mr. Azim Hasham Premji under Section 15(1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971 in Consent Application No.04/2021 to initiate criminal contempt against ‘Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the present contempt petition’ and

recorded a finding that the clauses of resolution of the Board of Directors would show that the role of Accused No.2 â€" R. Subramanian, is not

limited to the role of counsel, but it is far beyond that. In other words Accused No.2 â€" R. Subramanian can be said to be part of Accused No.1 â€

‘India Awake for Transparency’. Indeed, Accused No.2 â€" R. Subramanian has acted as authorized signatory in some of the proceedings and

one such affidavit is filed in the Company Petition No.182/2014. According to Accused No.2 - party in person, he has already filed W.P. (Civil)

No.885/2021 against the consent given by the learned Advocate General and same is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Accused

Nos.1 and 3 also filed Writ Petition No.19026/2021 before this Court and the same is pending for adjudication. Admittedly either before this Court or

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no interim order is passed as on today.

It is also not in dispute that this Court in the present contempt petition by the order dated 6.7.2021 relying upon the observations made in Writ

Petition No.172/2021 dated 12.2.2021 and Writ Appeal No.307/2021 dated 25.3.2021, has opined that ""this is a fit case to exercise suo motu power

of contempt of court proceedings."" Further, in view of the consent given by the learned Advocate General dated 10.6.2021, the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court observed that ""prima facie case of Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 committing criminal contempt is made out.

It is also relevant to state at this stage that Accused No.2 filed an application I.A. No.2/2021 to recall the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Co-

ordinate Bench. After arguing the matter at length, at the instance of Accused No.2/party-in person, I.A. No.2/2021 came to be dismissed as

withdrawn on 19.11.2021 with liberty to Accused No.2 to pursue his remedy in accordance with law. According to Accused No.2/ party-in-person,

against the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the present contempt petition, he has filed an SLP before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, but no documents are placed before this Court in support of the same.

It is also relevant to state at this stage that against the order passed by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs,

Government of India, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai, dated 17.8.2018 canceling/revoking licence of India Awake for Transparency, the 1st Accused filed

Writ Petition No.10235/2019 and connected matters before the High Court of Judicature at Madras duly represented by Mr.R. Subramanian, the 2nd

Accused herein as its advocate and the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court while dismissing the said writ petition by the order dated 4.1.2022,

has observed at paragraphs - 24. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 as under:

In this regard, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the shell companies that were forming part of the cartel were dealt with in

detail in the anticipatory bail petition filed by one of the Directors of the concern and taking note of the shell companies, this Court had

detailed the said companies which were functioning and the holding pattern in the said companies, while dealing with Crl. O.P.

No.21449/2015.

Thereafter series of litigations were filed by the petitioner in the Karnataka High Court against the 3rd respondent claiming defalcation

of accounts and after detailed hearing, learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the said petition in W.P. No.172/2021

(GM~Res) holding that the petition at the instance of the petitioner is a sheer abuse of process of law and also imposed cost.

The petitioner herein, thereafter filed appeal in O.S.A. No.1/2021 before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court assailing the

correctness of the order passed in Company Application No.185/2016 and the Division Bench, while dismissing the said appeal, observed

that the petitioner is indulging in speculative litigation not only by filing this appeal, but repeatedly over the years has been filing litigation

before one Court or the other for the same cause of action. Further, the Division Bench has also refrained the petitioner herein from

proceeding with filing any proceeding with regard to the amalgamation of three companies before any Court or authority or forum in view

of the loss of precious court time under the guise of public interest, which is nothing but an instance of gross abuse of process of law. The

Special Leave Petition in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.12031/2020 filed against the said order stood withdrawn by the petitioner.

It is further borne out by record, which is also not in dispute that action for criminal contempt has been initiated, suo motu, against the

petitioner by the Karnataka High Court, which is yet to see the light of the day and stepping into stopping the adjournment spree, the Hon-

ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1177 to 1179/2021 (Azim Hasham Premji & Anr. ~ Vs â€" India Awake for Transparency & Ors.

~ Dated 02.12.2021), has deprecated the act of the petitioner in trying to obfuscate the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court by

seeking adjournment one way or the other and had framed a time schedule within which the proceedings are to complete.

The above facts are narrated to highlight the fact about the modus of the petitioner in initiating litigative process, which are sheer abuse

of process of law. In this regard, all the litigations have been raised against the 3rd respondent herein before the Karnataka High Court,

which is an admitted fact. Merely because notice has been issued in one of the matters by the Karnataka High Court would not be a bar for

this Court to consider the sustainability of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent as there are many orders, which stare on the

face of the petitioner.

In the backdrop of the above facts, a careful perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent reveals that the 2nd respondent has

taken into consideration all the materials, including information collected by the SFIO, the Enforcement Directorate, Banks, Income Tax

Department, Statutory Auditors, CBI, Commissioner of Service Tax, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and having analysed the said

documents, has come to an irrefutable conclusion that the that the motive behind the formation of the respondent was not fulfilled even after

six years of incorporation and its objects are not achieved till date. Moreover, the regulatory compliances by the respondent company as

well as its owner companies were not fulfilled and the companies were not regular in filing their financial statements and statutory annual

returns and that the petitioner is only using its privileged position as a Section 8 company by involving itself in litigations with private

limited companies with no public interest nor serving any public cause.

It is also relevant to state at this stage that the 1st complainant in the present contempt petition initiated proceedings under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No.25456/2009 against Subhiksha Trading Services Limited; Mr.R. Subramanian (Accused No.2 herein), the

Director, Subhiksha Trading Services and three others. ""The XXI Addl. CMM & XXIII ASCJ, Bangalore city by the order dated 31.12.2021, has

convicted Accused Nos.1,2 and 5 therein {Subhiksha Trading Services Limited; Mr. R. Subramanian (present Accused No.2) and Mr. K.

Balasubramanian, Deputy General Manager, Subhiksha Trading Services} for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and shall pay fine of Rs.62,63,59,893/- (sixty two crores sixty-three

lakhs, fifty-nine thousand eight hundred and ninety-three only)"" and out of the fine amount, the complainant therein viz., Hasham Investment and

Trading Company Limited, is entitled for a sum of Rs.62,63,49,893/- as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and

balance of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the State as fine.

The material on record clearly depicts that the proceedings were filed in the name of the non-existing company (Accused No.1) by Accused No.3

as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its advocate challenging the legality of amalgamation of three Azim Premji Group of companies with

another group company, even though no outside shareholder or creditor was in any way affected. The challenge was on an absolutely frivolous and

absurd ground viz., that as the amalgamating companies were shareholders of each other, all their properties belonged to the Central Government

because of ""bona vacantia"" under Article 296 of the Constitution of India. The Central Government by the order dated 10.11.2017 specifically held

that the properties of the amalgamating companies did not belong to the Central Government. The same is also referred in Writ Appeal No.307/2021

by the Division Bench of this Court. The proceedings initiated by Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' against the complainants at the

instance of Accused No.2/party-in-person after the complainants initiated proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year

2009 against the Accused No.2 and others.

It is relevant to state that Accused No.2 - Subramanian is the alter ego of Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency', in whose name

various legal proceedings stated supra were filed. Licence granted to ‘India Awake for Transparency’ to drop the words 'Private Limited' from

its name was revoked by the Regional Director by the order dated 17.8.2018 passed under Section 8(6) of the Companies Act. It is important to note

that in every single legal proceedings, Accused No.2 - R. Subramanian has appeared as an advocate. Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for

Transparency', is mere shell company as is clear from its last available balance sheet, as it has no income and negligible expenditure, and does not

even possess a bank account. Its total assets are only about Rs. 1 lakh and this has remained unchallenged in the last several years. All these

indisputable facts make it clear that Accused No.2 - R. Subramanian is the alter ego of 'India Awake for Transparency', that ""India Awake for

Transparency"" is only a corporate facade used by Accused No.2, and that all the legal proceedings filed in the name of ""India Awake for

Transparency"" are at his behest and instance, as admitted by Accused No.3 in Writ Petition No.3635/2020 (PIL), wherein at paragraph - 50 it is

observed as under:

The Petitioner further states that the other defence of the 11th Respondent and his entities is as though the proceedings are mala fide as

the Petitioner is only a device being used by Mr. R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd had

dealings with the 12th Respondent. The Petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back as the said Mr. R.Subramanian is a

Volunteer of the Petitioner and is the very person who has filed the Affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's for recall of

merger and has appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the

Petitioner as Advocate of the Petitioner. The role of the said person is evidently not Suppressed nor in any manner sought to be hidden. The

law being well settled that mere claim of mala fide is no defence to a charge founded on evidence the said claims are mere red herring to try

and distract the judicial proceedings. The present proceedings are not driven by mala fide but the sheer scale of the fraud got effected with

connivance of all who were to protect public interest. The Petitioner states that many scams be it the coal scam or the 2G scam have come to

light only through actions of persons adversarial to the persons in power. That such persons would be the watchdogs when regulators fail

to act is well recognised. The petitioner states that in any event there is no requirement for it to be a front for any other as what the issues

herein can be raised by any one in public interest.

(emphasis supplied)

As already stated supra, the writ petition filed in the name of Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency in Writ Petition No.3635/2020 came

to be dismissed as it was unconditionally withdrawn on 1.10.2020 and no liberty was granted to Accused No.1 represented by Accused No.3 as its

authorized signatory. In the absence of the same, subsequent writ petitions filed on the same cause of action, are not permissible as observed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court and confirmed by the Division Bench as stated supra.

Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A.T., reported in (1987)1

SCC 5, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has held at

paragraph 9 as under:

The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that article.

On this point the decision in Daryao case [AIR 1961 SC 1457 : (1962) 1 SCR 574] is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the

principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of

withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also

discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a

petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal

of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ

petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was

not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file

a fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ

petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or

seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing

altogether. We, however leave this question open.

The Hon'be Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 226 of the Constitution of

India in the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 560, has held at paragraphs 15 and

16 as under:

In the said counter-affidavit, it has further been disclosed that after being unsuccessful in their attempt to stall the recovery

proceedings against the Samiti, a fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely, Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha was started by

Appellant 2. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the attempt on the part of the appellants herein must be termed as “abuse of the

process of lawâ€​.

A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not

suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the

process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [(1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688] this Court was of

the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, in the case ofS anjiv Datta, Dy.

Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, reported in (1995)3 SCC 619, has held at paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:

Of late, we have been coming across several instances which can only be described as unfortunate both for the legal profession and the

administration of justice. It becomes, therefore, our duty to bring it to the notice of the members of the profession that it is in their hands to

improve the quality of the service they render both to the litigant-public and to the courts, and to brighten their image in the society. Some

members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from their

absence when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings â€" many times even illegible and without

personal check and verification, the non-payment of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to take

steps to serve the parties, et al. They do not realise the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the

court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and

delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system.

The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members.

Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional

has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The legal profession is different from other

professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the

civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself

as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The society has a right to expect of him such ideal

behaviour. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in high esteem and its members have played an enviable

role in public life. The regard for the legal and judicial systems in this country is in no small measure due to the tireless role played by the

stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. They took their profession seriously and practised it with dignity, deference and devotion. If

the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalised. No service will be too small in making the system efficient, effective and

credible. The casualness and indifference with which some members practise the profession are certainly not calculated to achieve that

purpose or to enhance the prestige either of the profession or of the institution they are serving. If people lose confidence in the profession

on account of the deviant ways of some of its members, it is not only the profession which will suffer but also the administration of justice as

a whole. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked

from outside. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the courts the

unpleasant duty. We say no more.

Like any other organ of the State, the Judiciary is also manned by human beings - but the function of the judiciary is distinctly different from other

organs of the State - in the sense its function is divine. Today, the judiciary is the repository of public faith. It is the trustee of the people. It is the last

hope of the people. After every knock at all the doors fail, people approach the judiciary as the last resort. It is the only temple worshipped by every

citizen of this nation, regardless of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. It is high time the judiciary must take utmost care to see that the temple of

justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to a catastrophe in the justice-delivery system resulting in the failure of public confidence in the

system. We must remember that woodpeckers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside.

The accused No.2 who is the Officer of the Court must ensure that the majesty of the Court is maintained and not to take advantage to file

repeated petitions at the instance of Accused No.3 in the name of Accused No.1 company â€" 'India Awake for Transparency', which is non-existing.

In such an event, the people lose confidence in the profession on account of deviant ways by Accused No.2 at the instance of Accused No.3. It is not

only the profession which will suffer but also administration of justice as a whole. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take

corrective steps in time and also spare the Courts the unpleasant duty. The conduct of Accused NO.3 filing the petitions again and again against the

complainants in the name of Accused No.1 - company, which is non-existent, is nothing but daring ride on the Court, which is impermissible.

It is true that the judges should not be hyper sensitive in discharging judicial functions, but that does not mean and imply that they ought to maintain

angelic silence also. Immaterial it is as to the person but it is the seat of justice which needs protection; it is the image of judicial system which needs

protection. Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temple of justice. The majesty of the Court shall have to be maintained and there

ought not to be any compromise or leniency in that regard. It is well settled that legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble

calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification

of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court.

The casualness with which some members practice the profession is certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige either

of the profession or of the institution they are serving.

The experience of this Court depicts that in recent years there has emerged a trend of filing speculative litigations before various Courts of law,

not just in the Court of first instance, but also in the High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure

that such litigations shall be weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants

seeking justice treating the Court as ""Temple of Justice"" and to protect precious public & judicial time of the court.

This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system"".

It is high time for the Court to protect not only the majesty of the court, but also ensure judicial discipline of the Court, since it is the repository of

public faith and trustee of the people. The circumstances warrant that the Court has to act as 'Societal Parent' to protect Dharma as preached by

Bhagvan Sri Krishna, at verse 7-8 of Chapter 4 of the Bhagavadgeetha, which is as under:

which means:

Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata, And there is exaltation of unrighteousness, then I myself come forth;

For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers,

For the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I am born from age to age.

It is the contention of learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 that after withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 3635/2020, filing of five separate writ

petitions in the name of Accused No.1 by Accused No.3, cannot be treated as abuse of the process of the Court and thereby the charges framed

against Accused No.3 is not proper. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of the discussion/reasons stated supra that the accused No.3

conducted the proceedings stated above even after cancellation of licence of the Accused No.1 - company by the Regional Director, in exercise of

the powers under the provisions of Section 8(6) of the Companies Act by the order dated 17.8.2018 and the writ petition No.10235/2019 filed before

the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the order dated 17.8.2018 came to be dismissed by the order dated 4.1.2022.

The further contention of the learned senior Counsel for Accused No.3 is that the averments made in the contempt petition do not amount to

criminal contempt, since Accused No.3 is neither Manager nor Secretary or other Officer as contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 59 of the

Companies Act. The said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Accused NO.3 has acted on behalf of Accused No.1 company, in

terms of the resolution of the Board of Directors of Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' dated 1.6.2015, wherein at serial No.2 -Mr.

Panjala Sadananda was authorized to act jointly or severally along with two others, to institute, commence, prosecute, file, present, carry on or defend

or resist and conduct any complaint including criminal contempt, Arbitral proceeding, suit, Legal or other proceedings of any kind for recovery or

realization of monies or assets to which the Company is entitled to, company petitions of all kinds, both in respect of matters of company itself and in

respect of those of counter party companies etc.,

Learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 submits that if for any reason, this Court comes to the concussion that Accused No.3 filing the petitions

after petitions in the name of Accused No.1 - company, which was non-existing amounts to criminal contempt, his unconditional apology may be

accepted and pardon the Accused No.3. The same cannot be accepted as this Court by the order dated 23.12.2021 while holding that this is a fit case

to frame the charge, has not accepted the apology and the said order passed by this court has reached finality. Further, Accused No.3 has not filed

any affidavit of unconditional apology, in writing before this Court. If really Accused No.3 wants to tender unconditional apology, he should have given

it in writing by way of personal affidavit and used the proper words and it should have been sincere and should have expressed regret. In the absence

of the same and in the absence of any affidavit of unconditional apology in writing, the oral submission of the learned senior counsel for Accused

No.3, cannot be accepted.

In the judgment relied upon by learned senior counsel for Accused NO.3 in the case of Rajesh Kumar Singh -vs- High Court of Judicature of

Madhya Pradesh Bench, Gwalior reported in (2007)14 SCC 126 [para 20 and 21) the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly cautioned that the power

to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint. Courts should not

readily infer an intention to scandalize courts or lowering the authority of he court unless such intention is clearly established. Nor should they exercise

power to punish for contempt where mere question of propriety is involved and the Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect and they

cannot demand respect by-

(i) punishing persons for unintended acts or technical violations;

(ii) frequent summoning of Government officers to court; and

(iii) making avoidable adverse comments and observations against persons who are not parties.

The exercise of such powers results in eroding the confidence of the public, rather than creating trust and faith in the judiciary.

We have no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court about the over sensitivity and punishing persons for unintended acts or

technical violations etc, but in the present case, admittedly the licence granted to Accused No.1 â€" 'India Awake for Transparency' came to be

cancelled/revoked by the Regional Director, in exercise of the powers under Section 8(6) of the Companies Act as per the order dated 17.8.2018.

Though a writ petition came to be filed in Writ Petition No.10235/2019 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the order dated

17.8.2018, no interim order was granted during the pendency of the said writ petition and ultimately the said writ petition came to be dismissed on

4.1.2022. It is not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - company, Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its

advocate filed several writ petitions, writ appeals against the complainants and others and failed to succeed in those matters. Though learned counsel

for Accused No.3 and Party-in-Person/Accused No.2 submit that SLPs filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no material produced before this

Court to show that Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed any interim order. In the present case, the acts committed by Accused Nos.2 and 3, are

nothing but lowering the dignity and majesty of the Court and the Courts should not be silent spectators allowing the Accused No.3 to file litigation

after litigation on the same cause of action, in the name of Accused No.1 (non-existing company) represented by Accused No.2/advocate and the

same is nothing but forum shopping and cannot be encouraged. Therefore, the said judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for Accused

No.3 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench relied upon by the learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 in the case of the Bangalore Development

Authority by its Commissioner -vs-Gururaj and another reported in ILR 2007 Kar. 5184, this Court held that filing of the appeal against the order

of rejection of plaint cannot be termed as interference in the administration of justice or obstruction of the same - order VII Rule 13 clearly permits the

accused for filing fresh suit on the same cause of action, when the plaint is rejected on any of the grounds enumerated under Rule 11 of Order VII

CPC. Since the accused has availed the statutory remedy by filing a second suit, the same cannot be termed as obstruction or interference in the

administration of justice.

It is not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - company, Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its advocate filed

several writ petitions, writ appeals against the complainants.The same is admitted by Accused No.3 in Writ Petition No.3635/2020 (PIL), wherein at

paragraph-50 it is specifically stated as under:

The Petitioner further states that the other defence of the 11th Respondent and his entities is as though the proceedings are mala fide as

the Petitioner is only a device being used by Mr. R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd had

dealings with the 12th Respondent. The Petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back as the said Mr. R.Subramanian is a

Volunteer of the Petitioner and is the very person who has filed the Affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's for recall of

merger and has appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the

Petitioner as Advocate of the Petitioner.

It is also not in dispute that Writ Petition No.172 of 2021 filed by the 1st accused was disposed of by the order dated 12.2.2021, wherein the

learned Single Judge of this Court observed that there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action

and as held in the case of Udyami - (2008)1 SCC 560, this amounts to criminal contempt. Admittedly, the said order passed by the learned Single

Judge is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.307 of 2021 by the judgment dated 25.3.2021 and the same has reached

finality. Therefore, it is clear that Accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed several writ petitions and writ appeals against the complainants to settle the score

between them and the complainants, as there was no direct lis between the parties. Therefore, the dictum of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of

BDA stated supra has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Though Accused No.2 contended that no documents are produced to prove the charge No.1 that he has played a dual role i.e., both as an

authorized signatory as well as an advocate, the material on record stated supra clearly indicates that he has acted not only as an authorized signatory

but also as an advocate from 23.4.2015 till 7.1.2020 and his authorization dated 1.7.2015 was withdrawn only on 7.1.2020 in the meeting of Board of

Directors of Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency', a non-existing company. In fact the said resolution dated 7.1.2020 was signed by only

one Director. Therefore, the contention of the Accused No.2/party-in-person cannot be accepted.

Though the contentions urged by accused No.2/Party-in-Person that his role is limited to that of a pure advocate with no dual role and therefore,

the scope of dragging him into these proceedings is very limited as it can be only in respect of matters where the advocate can have some direct

responsibility as in the case of suppression or scandalous pleadings; In the present case, as there was no repeated filing of writ petitions on the same

cause of action, the judgment dated 12th February, 2021 delivered in Writ Petition No.172/2021 is erroneous since it has been held that the writ

petitions are being filed on the same cause of action; and When reliefs are different and the main respondent itself is different in each of the writ

petitions, the question of filing writ petition repeatedly does not arise, the same cannot be accepted, when the learned Single Judge of this Court at

paragraph-27 has specifically held as under:

Thus, there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action. As held in Udyami Evam

Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another -vs-State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008)1 SCC 560, this amounts to

criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same.

The said writ petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs). It is also not in dispute that against the said order passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court, Writ Appeal No.307/2021 was preferred by India Awake for Transparency/accused No.1 represented by the said

Sri P. Sadananda/accused No.3, authorized signatory represented by an advocate, Sri R. Subramanian/accused No.2, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court by the judgment, dated 25th March, 2021 at paragraph 18 has opined that, in the light of the judgments referred therein, writ petition is nothing

but sheer abuse of process of law. The appellant therein (respondent No.1 herein) had been unsuccessful on almost about nine occasions by filing the

frivolous proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in imposing the exemplary costs while dismissing the writ petition and against

said order, the writ appeal preferred was also not maintainable in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja

Transport Service -vs- State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and Others reported in (1987)1 SCC 5 and accordingly, it was

dismissed. Therefore, the contention of accused No.2 that, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the writ petition is being filed on the same

cause of action, cannot be accepted. However, in the present contempt proceedings, admittedly, when the orders passed by the learned Single Judge

is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and has reached finality, the contention of accused No.2 that, the subject matter of writ appeals are

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be accepted in the absence of any material produced before this Court.

With regard to other contention urged by the Party-in-Person/accused No.2 with regard to the merits of the orders passed by the learned Single

Judge and Division Bench stated supra, this Court cannot adjudicate the case on merits except in verifying whether the proceedings set out are being

action of criminal contempt or not. As already stated supra, all the proceedings initiated in the name of non-existing company-accused No.1

represented by accused No.3 as authorised signatory, through an advocate, Sri R. Subramanian/accused No.2, clearly depicts that the accused

persons have abused the process of law. It is the duty of accused No.2 being an advocate, who is called the Officer of the Court, to advise accused

No.3 properly and ought not to have supported accused No.3 in filing successive writ petitions against the complainants and others, even though he

has been unsuccessful in all the matters, when according to him, all the matters have reached finality before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

writ appeals and original side appeals which are also subject matters of appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but no material is produced

before this Court to prove that there is no interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the contention of accused No.2 that no

charge is made out against him and the entire criminal contempt proceedings are only malafide proceedings, cannot be accepted.

As already stated supra, when the charges framed against accused Nos.2 and 3 by this Court on 23.12.2021 has reached finality, the material on

record clearly depicts that accused No.2, being the authorized signatory and an advocate of a non-existent company-accused No.1-India Awake for

Transperancy, has played dual role between 23.4.2016 and 7.12.2020 by filing number of frivolous writ petitions, writ appeals, criminal petitions,

original side appeals against complainants and others suppressing the facts amounting to abuse of process of law and continued the proceedings; and

inspite of dismissal of all the writ petitions filed on the same cause of action and despite warning and prohibition by the orders of this Court, still filed

several cases and continued the proceedings and his conduct (accused No.2) is nothing but daring ride on the Court and mockery of judicial process,

not only affecting the interest of the public at large, but also interfering with the administration of justice by misusing the forum of various Courts,

wasting precious public judicial time, thereby amounting to criminal contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act.

The material on record clearly depicts that the charge framed against accused No.3 also proves the fact that he filed repeated number of frivolous

writ petitions, writ appeals, criminal petitions, original side appeals against the complainants and others in the name of accused No.1/India Awake for

Transparency which is a non-existing Company amounting to abuse of process of law in wasting precious public judicial time. Depsite warning and

prohibition by the orders of the Court, he filed several cases and continued the proceedings and his conduct is nothing, but daring ride on the Court and

mockery of judicial process not only affecting the interest of public at large, but also interfering with the administration of justice and by misusing the

forum of various Courts, thereby amounting to criminal contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act.

The further contention of the party-in-person/accused No.2 that, no proceedings have been adjudicated on merits and as such, the question of any

further hearing being frivolous does not arise, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and consequently, the cognizance of criminal contempt has been taken against accused Nos.2 and 3 by the order

dated 6.7.2021 holding that the action of accused Nos.2 and 3 amounts to criminal contempt and the same has reached finality.

The present contempt proceedings is arising out of the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court for taking cognizance

of the offence of the criminal contempt committed by the accused persons and to punish them for commission of acts of criminal contempt. It is also

relevant to mention, at this stage, that inspite of serious contest by accused Nos.2 and 3, during the course of arguments, the submission made by the

accused that, if the Court comes to the conclusion that, accused Nos.2 and 3 are found guilty of charges levelled against them, they would tender

unconditional apology and may be pardoned by dropping the contempt proceedings, cannot be accepted in the present contempt proceedings. In the

entire synopsis filed by either accused No.2 or learned Counsel for accused No.3, they have submitted that they would tender unconditional apology in

the form of affidavit. The way in which the arguments are submitted on behalf of accused Nos.2 and 3 is that, if this Court comes to the conclusion

that accused Nos.2 and 3 are found guilty of the charges leveled against them, they would tender unconditional apology, is a fence sitting attitude and

clearly depicts that they are not expressing any remorse. As such, the oral unconditional apology in the absence of any affidavit cannot be accepted.

It is also the specific contention of the complainants that the verification of the pleadings by Accused No.3 in all 42 proceedings filed in the name

of ‘India Awake for Transparency’ against the complainants and others constitute criminal contempt. Accused No.3 has stated on oath before

the criminal court that he does not know English or Kannada and that he only knows Telugu. Consequently, it is not possible for him to be acquainted

with the pleadings and the facts and the allegations and contentions raised in each legal proceeding. In these circumstances, the blind and mindless

participation of Accused No.3 in the number of legal proceedings, only in order to enable Accused No.2 to file number of legal proceedings in order to

wreak vengeance on the complainants and others and this itself constitutes criminal contempt as it has interfered with and obstructed the

administration of justice simultaneously. The same is admitted by Accused No.3 in writ petition filed by him in W.P. No.3635/2020 stating that - ""The

petitioner is only a device being used by Mr. R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd had dealings

with the 12th Respondent. The Petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back as the said Mr. R.Subramanian is a Volunteer of

the Petitioner and is the very person who has filed the Affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's for recall of merger and has

appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the Petitioner as

Advocate of the Petitioner

It is undisputed fact that the accused persons filed repeated Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals etc., in the name of non-existing company - 'India Awake

for Transparency' without using the words 'Private Limited', is nothing but a brazen suppression of identity and impersonation done only with a view to

mislead this Court (judiciary). Further, 'India Awake for Transparency' had only four share holders i.e., (i)Analog Financial Services Private Limited,

(ii)Analog Stock Broking Services Private Limited, (iii)Intel Registry Services Private Limited, and (iv) Lucky View Home Finance Private Limited.

The Madras High Court, by its judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed in Crl.O.P.No.21449/2015, has specifically found that, these four shareholder

companies were established and controlled by accused No.2-R.Subramanian. The Directors of 'India Awake for Transparency'-Mr. Rajender Kumar

and Mrs. Adiseshan Srimathi are disqualified to act as Directors and their appointment as Additional Directors was not regularized in the Annual

General Body Meeting of 'India Awake for Transparency'. It is an undisputed fact that in every single legal proceeding, R. Subramanian has appeared

as an Advocate. 'India Awake for Transparency' is a mere shell company as is clear from its last available balance sheet, as it has no income and

negligible expenditure, and does not even possess a bank account. All these indisputable facts on record make it abundantly clear that accused No.2-

R.Subramanian is the Alter Ego of 'India Awake for Transparency', that 'India Awake for Transparency' is only a corporate facade used by accused

No.2 and that all the legal proceedings filed in the name of 'India Awake for Transparency' are at his behest and instance and are financed and

controlled by him, as he is the 'directing mind' of 'India Awake for Transparency', and thus continuous and long drawn litigations are at the instance of

Accused Nos.2 and 3, thereby they invited the criminal contempt on their own acts and deeds.

The definition of ‘criminal contempt’ under the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act is very wide and squarely covers

all the aforesaid acts committed by Accused Nos.2 and 3. In view of the above, Accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed criminal contempt as

contemplated under the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are liable to be punished under the provisions of

Section 12 of the Act. Keeping in view the fact that Accused No.2, who is a practicing Advocate has misused not only the trust of the litigant

entrusted with him, but also has abused the process of the court and such action not only tends to lower the dignity of the court, but also lower the

prestige of the court in the eyes of the public litigant, it is desirable to impose maximum sentence awardable under Section 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, but having regard to the totality of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in order to provide an opportunity to

Accused Nos.2 and 3 to reform themselves, we are of the considered opinion that accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be convicted for the contempt of

Court punishable under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for TWO MONTHS with

fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one month.

VIII - CONCLUSION

On appreciation of the entire material placed on record and for the reasons stated above and in the light of the principles enunciated in the dictums

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, we answer the points raised in the present contempt petition as under:

(i) The 1st point raised is answered in the affirmative holding that the charge levelled against Accused Nos.2 and 3 is proved beyond reasonable

doubt, thereby the said accused persons have committed criminal contempt of court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,

punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(ii) The 2nd point raised is answered in the negative holding that the Accused Nos.2 and 3 have not made out a case to drop the criminal contempt

proceedings and discharge them, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

IX - RESULT

In view of the above, we pass the following order:

(i) The criminal contempt petition is allowed.

(ii) Accused No.2 â€" Mr. R. Subramanian and Accused No.3 â€" Mr. P. Sadanand, are hereby convicted for the contempt of Court, punishable

under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for TWO MONTHS

with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(iii) The Accused Nos.2 and 3 are hereby restrained from initiating any legal proceedings against the Complainants and their group of companies

before any Court, Tribunal, Authority or forum.

(iv) The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to prepare a warrant of commitment and detention in respect of Accused No.2 and Accused

No.3 in Form No.3 as contemplated under Rule 16(1) of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 and take further

action against the Accused Nos.2 and 3 to undergo punishment imposed.