Deposit Rs 1 lakh costs with PM-CARES Fund, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 7

Amid the growing burden on healthcare infrastructure following a spurt in Covid cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed that costs of Rs 1 lakh imposed on a petitioner be deposited with the PM-CARES Fund.

‘NO LINK, CAN’T MAINTAIN PLEA’

In the present case, admittedly both petitioners are residents of Mumbai and the company-respondent is registered with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, and has no connection with the Registrar of Companies, Punjab and Chandigarh. The counsel for the petitioners has been unable to show how the writ petition is maintainable in this court. — Justice Alka Sarin, Punjab and Haryana High Court

The direction came in a case pertaining to Mumbai, but filed in the High Court here. Justice Alka Sarin asserted that the filing of the petition in this High Court was not “bona fide”.

The petition by Mumbai-based Vijay Goverdhandas Kalantri and another petitioner against Union of India and other respondents was filed for setting aside impugned action under provisions of the Companies Act of disqualifying them to act as directors of a Mumbai-registered company from November 1, 2018.

Appearing before the Bench, standing counsel for Union of India Bhuwan Vats pointed out that both petitioners were residents of Mumbai and the respondent-company regarding which the petitioners were disqualified to act as directors was also registered with the Registrar of Companies in Mumbai.

He pointed out that the Registrar of Companies, Punjab and Chandigarh, had been impleaded as party only to surreptitiously create jurisdiction of this court though the Registrar of Companies had no connection with the present case and this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the writ petition had been filed since the petitioners wished to invest in a company within the jurisdiction of this court.

“In the present case, admittedly both petitioners are residents of Mumbai and the company-respondent is registered with the Registrar of Companies, Mumbai, and has no connection with the Registrar of Companies, Punjab and Chandigarh. The counsel for the petitioners has been unable to show how the writ petition is maintainable in this court,” Justice Sarin asserted.

Before parting with the case, Justice Sarin noted that there was no ground for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as the petitioners were neither residents of Punjab, Haryana or Chandigarh nor was the company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Punjab and Chandigarh.

Justice Sarin added that the writ petition appeared to have been filed to gain benefit of an interim order passed by this court in other cases “though the initiation of the writ proceedings in this High Court was clearly unsustainable and an abuse of jurisdiction”.