Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2243 (DEL)

Montreaux Resorts P. Tld. v. Sonia Khosla

2014-08-21

SANJEEV SACHDEVA

body2014
Judgment : 1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court by order dated 04.01.2012 had directed as under:- “15. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that he shall not appear in any Court either in person or as attorney; he does not have inherent right to appear and argue in person……… 16. After seeing his conduct in this Court and in different Courts, I am of the opinion that before resorting to legal action, he should be medically examined. It seems that he is suffering from some kind of mental disorder as he has been taking the Courts for granted and has been acting over-smart. Therefore, in these compelling circumstances, his mental assessment is essential.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that impugning the order dated 04.01.2012, the respondent had filed an appeal being LPA No.16/2012 wherein the Division Bench by Judgment dated 24.02.2012 directed as under:- “71. During the course of proceedings before us, the Bakshi Group has filed details of litigations/proceedings which have been initiated by the Khosla Group from 2008 onwards in this Court. The number is 67. These are original or substantive proceedings. This number does not include applications for interim directions/orders and other interlocutory prayers/directions. The Khosla Group has initiated as many as 8 proceedings against the advocates appearing for Bakshi Group primarily on the ground that they have wrongly claimed or stated that Vikram Bakshi was/is Director of the company or/ and they can appear on behalf of the said company on the basis of authorization given by Vikram Bakshi/the Bakshi Group. The Khosla Group has filed as many as 16 contempt cases, some of which have been disposed of. 14 applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. have been filed by Khosla Group against Bakshi Group or others. Most of the applications are based on the cause of action that Vikram Bakshi was/is wrongly claiming himself to be a director; the minutes of the AGM held on 30th September, 2006 are forged etc. The details of these 67 cases are submitted by the Bakshi Group during the course of hearing is not being reproduced this order for the sake of brevity. 72. As noticed, there are number of proceedings/cases pending both in the High Court and in District Courts. The details of these 67 cases are submitted by the Bakshi Group during the course of hearing is not being reproduced this order for the sake of brevity. 72. As noticed, there are number of proceedings/cases pending both in the High Court and in District Courts. Issue of this nature and whether or not Deepak Khosla is entitled to appear as a self represented litigant or for others, if taken up for consideration in different forums/courts, would lead to and cause it’s own problems and difficulties. Apart from the possibility of conflicting orders, there would be delay, confusion and judicial time will be spent in several courts dealing with an identical/similar question/issue. It is, therefore, advisable that this aspect be considered and decided before one Bench in the High Court rather than in different benches/courts. Further, this question should be decided first and immediately before Deepak Khosla can be permitted to appear and is given an audience. Keeping these aspects in mind, we feel that it will be appropriate that the entire aspect and issue is decided by the learned single Judge as expeditiously as possible and till the decision is taken, there should be stay of further proceedings in different matters before the High Court and in the District Courts. This direction will not apply and prevent Deepak Khosla for filing any writ petition under Article 226 or moving an application for bail/anticipatory bail. This will also not apply to any proceedings pending before the Supreme Court or Courts outside Delhi. 73. In view of the aforesaid, we hold as under and issue the following directions:- (i) The High Court has inherent power distinct and separate from power of contempt to injunct/sanction vexatious or frivolous litigation, vexatious/habitual litigants, contumelious litigant and issue appropriate directions, including prohibiting the said litigant from appearing and arguing matters in person and for others and from initiating or filing proceedings, except with permission of the Court. (ii) The two directions given in the impugned order dated 4th January, 2012 are set aside. (iii) Order dated 4th January, 2012 will be treated as a show cause notice. The learned single Judge will examine other allegations, which have been made by the respondents and issue a supplementary show cause notice, if deemed appropriate and necessary. (iv) The appellant will be entitled to respond and file reply to the show cause notice. (iii) Order dated 4th January, 2012 will be treated as a show cause notice. The learned single Judge will examine other allegations, which have been made by the respondents and issue a supplementary show cause notice, if deemed appropriate and necessary. (iv) The appellant will be entitled to respond and file reply to the show cause notice. He will not be orally heard or given audience. He can, however, appoint an advocate to appear for him and make oral submissions. (v) Till the decision, there will be stay of the pending proceedings or initiation of new proceedings before the High Court and in the District Courts. This direction will not apply and prevent Deepak Khosla from filing writ petitions under Article 226 and moving any application for bail/anticipatory bail, if required and necessary. Deepak Khosla, however, will not be permitted and allowed to appear for any third party till decision. This will not apply to any proceedings before the Supreme Court or in any courts outside Delhi. In case immediate orders are required, the parties (including the respondents) can approach the learned single Judge for appropriate directions or permission to continue with the pending proceedings or initiate new proceedings. (vi) An order disposing of the show cause notice will be passed expeditiously as soon as possible. In such matters, it is apparently desirable that the proceeding should be concluded as soon as possible as it causes prejudice to the parties in litigation.” 3. It is submitted that the respondent had challenged the order dated 24.04.2012 before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.15004/2012. The Supreme Court on 19.09.2012, passed the following order :- “Delay condoned. We see no reason to interfere with the directions passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.” 4. It is submitted that even a review was filed by the respondent impugning the order dated 24.04.2012 but the review had been dismissed. A modification application was filed and the same was also dismissed. 5. In terms of sub-para (iv) of Paragraph 73, when the respondent was asked whether any response or reply had been filed to the show cause notice, he submits that the order does not clearly spell out or amount to a show cause notice and it is not clear as to what the respondent has to respond to. 6. 5. In terms of sub-para (iv) of Paragraph 73, when the respondent was asked whether any response or reply had been filed to the show cause notice, he submits that the order does not clearly spell out or amount to a show cause notice and it is not clear as to what the respondent has to respond to. 6. Sub-para (iii) of paragraph 73 of the said judgment directs that the order dated 04.01.2012 will be treated as a show cause notice. The Single Bench has been directed to examine the other allegations which have been made by the respondent (petitioner herein) and issue a supplementary show cause notice if deemed appropriate and necessary. 7. Since the respondent submits that it is not clear as to what the respondent has to respond to, it is hereby clarified that the respondent has to respond to the part of paragraph No.15 of the order dated 04.01.2012 extracted hereinabove i.e. he has to show cause as to why he should not be restrained from appearing in any Court either in person or as an attorney. He also has to respond to the factual matrix as extracted in the order dated 04.01.2012. 8. Four weeks time is granted to the respondent to file a response to the above in terms of the directions passed by the Division Bench in order dated 24.04.2012. 9. The Division Bench has directed that the respondent shall not be orally heard or given audience, however, he would be permitted to appoint an advocate for him or make oral submissions. 10. The Respondent is granted four weeks time to appoint an advocate for him to make oral submissions in terms of the directions of the Division Bench in sub-para (iv) of paragraph 73. 11. The respondent is directed to file a list of all proceedings initiated by the respondent post the directions passed in sub-para (v) of paragraph 73 of order dated 24.04.2012 within four weeks. In terms of sub-para (v) of paragraph 73 of the said order of the Division Bench, all proceedings were liable to be stayed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) 6873/2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.05.2014 has directed the Company Law Board to decide Co. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) 6873/2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.05.2014 has directed the Company Law Board to decide Co. Pet No.114/2007 and also decide the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla in the Company Law Board. 13. The directions passed in LPA 16/2012 staying pending proceedings and initiation of new proceedings would not in any manner come in the way of the directions passed by the Supreme Court and the Company Law Board shall decide the Co. Pet. No.114/2007 and the application under Section 340 Cr. P.C. in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the said order. 14. Report dated 18.07.2014 has been received from Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee stating that costs of Rs.20,000/- imposed on the respondent in Cont. Cas(C) 165/2008 by order dated 13.08.2013 has not been deposited till date. 15. The respondent states that the cost has not been paid and he states that he is ready to pay the costs on him being shown the provisions of law under which the cost could have been imposed. He further states that a writ petition on the said aspect was also filed which has been dismissed. A review against the said dismissal is stated to have been filed and is stated to be pending. 16. The respondent is directed to file an affidavit within four weeks disclosing the number of orders passed by this Court in various proceedings/applications in which costs have been imposed on the respondent and status of the costs in those matters. 17. The Registry is also directed to file a list of all such proceedings/applications filed by the respondent in which costs have been imposed on the respondent. 18. The respondent Mr. Deepak Khosla states that he appears as an advocate as well. He states that he appears in cases other than the cases which are his personal cases. He states that he predominantly practices in Delhi. He states that he is enrolled with the Bar Council of Karnataka (Enrolment No. KAR 1280/2013). 19. He states that though there are certain matters in contemplation to be filed in the State of Karnataka, however, no matter has been filed till date in the State of Karnataka. 20. He states that he predominantly practices in Delhi. He states that he is enrolled with the Bar Council of Karnataka (Enrolment No. KAR 1280/2013). 19. He states that though there are certain matters in contemplation to be filed in the State of Karnataka, however, no matter has been filed till date in the State of Karnataka. 20. The Respondent is directed to file within four weeks copy of the enrolment application as well as the supporting documents filed by him with the Bar Council of Karnataka for his enrolment. 21. The Secretary, Bar Council of India is directed to obtain a copy of the enrolment application form alongwith the supporting documents submitted by the respondent with the Bar Council of Karnataka and furnish the same to this Court within a period of four weeks. 22. The petitioner is directed to communicate a copy of this order to Secretary, Bar Council of India for compliance. 23. Renotify on 14th October, 2014. Dasti.