Bombay High Court
All India Idbi Officers ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 January, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
Jitendra Digitally signed
by Jitendra S.
S. Nijasure
Date: 2021.01.21
Nijasure 12:21:53 +0530
36-chsl-291-2019.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO.291 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2833 OF 2012
All India IDBI Officers Association Thru its ...Applicants /
Officers Association General Secretary Mr. Petitioners
Rajiv Shriram Athalye
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy, Hitesh
Soni, Ms. Jayashree Pillai i/b. Hitesh Soni & Associates for Applicants
/ Petitioners.
Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Adbvocate with Mr. Vishal Talsania i/b.
Kanchan Pamnani for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Mohamedali M. Chunawala i/b. A.A. Ansari for Respondent
Nos.1 and 3.
----------
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 12 January 2021
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
36-chsl-291-2019.doc
2. Mr. Talsania, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2 submits that the Chamber Summons (L) No.291 of 2019 is
required to be heard along with the Petition itself as per the order
dated 6th March, 2020.
3. Mr. Talsania has cited the judgment of this Court, dated 8th
December, 2020 (Coram :- Dipankar Datta, CJ and G.S. Kulkarni,J)
and relied upon the paragraph 20 of the said judgment, which reads
thus:
"20. Submission of Shri Bapat that
the CVC Act has been made applicable
to IDBI Limited and that the
Ministry of Corporate affairs having
recorded IDBI Limited as a non-
banking Company and, therefore, IDBI
Limited ought to be regarded as an
undertaking of the Government of
India, has failed to impress us. The
vigilance control over IDBI Limited
by the Central Vigilance Commission
cannot be guiding factor for
exploring the answer to the issue
which we are primarily tasked to
decide. On this Writ Petition, we
are not called upon to decide
whether exercise of vigilance
control over IDBI Limited by the
Central Vigilance Commission is
legal and valid. Such a question can
be dealt with in an appropriate
proceedings, if the occasion thereof
arises. Further, nothing substantial
turns on holding of 51% share
capital in IDBI Limited by LIC. By
reason of the definition in Section
2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013,
IDBI Limited is not a Government
36-chsl-291-2019.doc
company. LICI could be a 'State' as
defined in Article 12 of the
Constitution but by reason thereof,
it does not necessarily follow that
IDBI Limited would attain the status
of "State" within the meaning of
Article 12. Also, reliance placed by
the petitioner on the date
maintained by the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs on the Company
(IDBI Limited) as per the
requirement of the 1956 Act or the
Companies Act, 2013 cannot be
accepted as sacrosanct for ruling in
favour of the petition having regard
to the clear provisions of the
applicable statutory enactments, as
noted above.
4. On the basis of the above cited judgment, Mr. Talsania submits
that the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
5. At this point, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that he requires to consider the judgment dated 8th
December, 2020, which has been cited for the first time today.
Further, he requires additional time to file additional Affidavit in
Support to the Petition as to its maintainability.
6. Considering these facts, following order is passed:-
(a) The Petitioner is permitted to file Additional Affidavit in
support of the Petition, with copy to other side on or before 12th
36-chsl-291-2019.doc
February, 2021.
(b) Additional Affidavit in Reply, if any, to be filed on or before
18th February, 2021, with copy to other side.
(c) Matter to appear on board on 23th February, 2021.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.] [K.K. TATED, J.]
