Vikram Bakshi: 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

03.02.2010

Present: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vibhu Bakhru and Mr. Anand. M. Mishra, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Khosla, attorney of the respondents.

I.A.1282/2010 in OMP No. 660/2009

In this application the following prayers are made:-

(a) Summon the following persons for deposition and cross-examination in the Court before issuance of notice on the present petition.

i. Mr. Vikram Bakshi (Respondent No.1)

ii. Mr. Vinod Surha

iii Mr. Wadia Parkash

iv Mr. Sameer Kudsia

v. Mr. Vikas Gera

In the alternative:

This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudicate the present proceedings on the basis that:

i) No AGM was held on 30-9-2006, and that Mr. Vinod Surha and Mr.Wadia Parkash have not been elected by the shareholders to further tenure under Section 257 of the Companies Act, and thus, have vacated office of Director by operation of law under Section 260 of the Companies Act with effect from 30-9-2006, with all consequential effects of the premise.

ii) Mrs. Sonia Khosla is the sole Director of the Company as on 13-8-2007.

iii) The 5,100 shares and 1,250 shares allegedly transferred to the name of Mr. Vikram Bakshi in June 2006 are acts that are illegal, and/or without any lawful authority, and/or without any lawful authority, and/or a nullity in law, void ab initio as in non est.

iv) The 10,000 shares allegedly issued in February 2007 is an act that is illegal, and/or is without any lawful authority, and/or is a nullity in law, void ab initio as if non est.

(b) Pass ex parte orders as prayed for above.

(c) And pass such other order or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

In the main petition, notice has not yet been issued and therefore there is no locus standi of the respondent to move any application, much less the prayers made in the application. Also, only if exparte orders are being passed, would a respondent as a caveator can seek hearing, and which is not the position herein. This application is accordingly dismissed.

I.A.No. 1283/2010 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.

I.A.No. 1284/2010 (Under Section 151 CPC) in OMP No. 660/2009

Mr. Deepak Khosla who appears for the respondent seeks hearing in this application before issuance of notice. Effectively by this application, Mr. Khosla seeks that this Court should recuse itself from hearing this case and this case be transferred to the Court of Justice P. K. Bhasin. By an order dated 29.1.2010 in A.A 217/2009 a similar prayer was made, in a similar application, which was dismissed by me. I find that a request for recusal was made before Justice Manmohan on 30.11.2009, which request was found to be baseless by the Court but the said Court transferred this case in view of the principle of fairness. This court is the only other court which is hearing arbitration matters, as per the roster fixed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The reliefs prayed in this application are under:-

(a) this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to propose to Hon’ble Chief Justice the transfer of the present proceedings to the Court presided over by Hon’ble Justice Mr. P.K.Bhasin.

In the alternative:

In accordance with Chapter II Section 2 of the Delhi High Court Rules, refer this aspect of the matter (i.e. which Court ought to hear this petition) to two or more Judges of this Hon’ble Court to decide the ‘Practice and Procedure’ to be adopted for hearing of the present matter.

(b) Defer the hearings in the present petition by a fortnight or so, so that the other matters in the reviews in Company Appeal Nos. 6 and 7 of 2008, Company Appeal No. 26 of 2008, Company Appeal No. 23 of 2008, the writ petition against AA No. 93of 2008, etc may stand competed.

In the alternative:

In accordance with Chapter II Section 2 of the Delhi High Court Rules, refer
this aspect of the matter (i.e. whether the present petition be heard before the
aforesaid matters are decided upon) to two or more Judges of this Hon’ble Court
to decide the ‘Practice and Procedure’ to be adopted for hearing of the present
matter.

(c) In the less-preferred alternative to prayers (a) and/or (b) above,
post the present petition for hearing to 19-5-2010, when OMP No. 316 of 2009
also is listed before this Hon’ble Court.

In the less-preferred alternative:

Defer hearing or further consideration of the present petition (or even issuance
of any notice to the applicants, if this Hon?ble Court be so inclined) till Mr.
Vinod Surha and Mr. Vikram Bakshi demonstrate evidence of their claim to that
they are Directors and Director-cum-shareholder of the Company respectively,
and in the case of Mr. Vinod Surha, evidence of his claim to be and act as the
lawfully-authorised representative of the Company in the present proceedings.

(d) Pass ex parte orders as prayed for above.

(e) And pass such other order to further order or orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

If this application is considered as an application of transfer of this case from this Court to a specific Court, then, the application cannot be filed
before me but substantive proceedings for transfer will have to be filed. All
that I can say, is that, this application is a sheer and complete abuse of the
process of law. No basis exists for grant of any of the reliefs as prayed for.
This application is therefore dismissed. Before I dismiss the application, I
may note that, the same has been filed for coming up on a day when the hearing
in this was fixed for today for deciding on issuance of the notice of the petition and/or for any ex –parte orders.

This practice of filing applications, which come up on the board and
which effectively seek to stall hearing of the other party on the petition, is
to be deprecated. Mr. Khosla has sought to contend that there are change of
circumstances which call for moving of the present application and which change
of circumstances are the change of circumstances between 29.1.2010 when I
passed the order on 29.01.2010 in A.A.No. 217/2009 and today. I do not agree
with the submission of Mr. Khosla. Accordingly, this application is dismissed
with conditional costs of Rs. 25,000/-. If the costs are not paid within two
weeks, the same shall carry interest at 18% per annum till date of payment. I
may finally note that in this case the various applications drafted by Mr.
Khosla, as also seen from other applications filed by him in various other
cases, that they do not reflect the prayers in easily comprehensible terms. I
must confess that it has indeed become difficult therefore to appreciate the
contentions and the case as put forth. Mr. Khosla is directed to comply with
the requirements of the different provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 with respect to applications filed by him.

Issue notice. Mr. Deepak Khosla, who appears for all the respondents accepts notice of this petition. A copy of the entire paper book has been supplied to Mr. Khosla. Mr.
Khosla states that a photocopy of the vakalatnama filed in this court should be
supplied to him. I do not think that there is a procedure for supplying the
photocopy of the vakalatnama filed by the counsel for the petitioner, which in
any case, does not have to be replied to in the reply to be filed by the
respondent. The request of Mr. Khosla is therefore rejected.
Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder be filed
within a period of two weeks thereafter.

List this case for hearing on 22nd March, 2010. Mr. Khosla, at this stage, wants me to record various submissions which in my opinion are wholly baseless and irrelevant. So far as issue of notice in this petition and filing of reply are concerned, I am not even inclined to record what is urged by Mr. Khosla, However, I note that such submissions made
by Mr. Khosla pertain to some contempt and criminal proceedings which he says
are pending against the petitioners.

In my order dated 29.01.2010 in A.A.217/2009, I had put Mr. Khosla to
firstly a notice, not to direct the court to pass orders in a particular manner.
Even thereafter, Mr. Khosla continued his attitude in the said A.A.217/2009 and
therefore a further warning was issued. Even today, Mr. Khosla in spite of the
same, insists that this court should pass orders using a particular language,
which he thinks ought to be recorded in the orders being passed. Since this is
a third warning to Mr. Khosla, I specifically issue a notice of contempt to Mr.
Deepak Khosla, Attorney of the respondents for interfering with the court
proceedings. Contempt notice is accordingly issued to Mr. Deepak Khosla, which
will be replied by Mr. Khosla within a period of four weeks from today.
List this suo moto contempt proceedings by means of and in a separate
file giving a separate numbering as a contempt petition, along with a copy of
today’s order and copy of the order dated 29.01.2010 in A.A.217/2009.

List on 22nd March, 2010.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

February 03, 2010

Vikram Bakshi

Monday, December 27, 2010

Vikram Bakshi - Profile

Friday, December 10, 2010

Vikram Bakshi Order dt. 03.02.10 in OMP 660 of 2009