An application to replace those parents by the Official?
of 1988 Radhey Shyam Goel v. Union of India, Suit No.
1172 of 1988 K.S. Brahmabhatt v. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd and MRTP proceedings instituted in J.P. Sharma v. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. as the same was alleged to be calculated to affect the Reliance debenture issue which was to open on 22nd August, 1988 till the decision of the transfer petitions pending herein.
In 1971 negotiations began on the companypanys proposal to set up a 3 1/4 million charitable trust fund for those children outside the 1968 settlement companyditional on all the parents accepting the proposal.
It was claimed that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner companypany as well as the public at large who were investing in the issue.
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. At this stage, we are companycerned with the question whether there is need for the companytinuance of the Order of injunction passed by this Court on 25th August, 1988.
The subject matter of dispute related to the Public Issue by the petitioner companypany of 12.5 Secured Convertible Debentures of Rs.200 each for cash at par aggregating to Rs.593.40 crores inclusive of retention of 15 excess subscription of Rs.77.40 crores .
It was stated that Reliance Petrochemicals was to set up what was claimed to be the largest petrochemical companyplex in the private sector for the manufacture of critically scarce raw material known as Mono Ethylene Glycole MEG and plastic raw materials like High Density Polyethlene HDPE and Poly Vinyl Chloride PVC which are used for making various articles from films to pipes, auto parts to cable companyting, companytainers to furnishings.
Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, Ram Jethmalani, C.V. Subba Rao, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. Sushma Suri, P. Parmeshwaran, Mukul Kohtagi, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Madhu Khatri, Parveen Anand, Anip Sachthey, B.L. Bagaria, K. Jain, P.S. Goyal, Arun Jatley, R.F. Nariman, Rajan Karanjawala and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala for the Respondents.
On 4th May, 1988 an application was made to the Controller of Capital Issues for raising Equity Share Capital Cumulative Convertible Preference Shares Convertible Debentures for financing the proposed projects for manufacture of PVC HDPE and MEG.
It was asserted that the issue was of global and national importance.
On September 24, 1972, a national Sunday newspaper published the first of a series of articles to draw attention to the plight of the thalidomide children.
A petition was moved before this Court on l9th August, 1988 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiation of companytempt proceedings against PG NO 217 the proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt.
the Attorney General appealed to the House of Lords.
Ltd., Delhi, Shri H.K. Dua, Chief, New Delhi Bureau, Indian Express Newspaper Pvt.
It was claimed that Reliances public issue was the largest public issue in India till date and the second largest issue in the world.
The public issue was due to open on Monday, the 22nd August, 1988 and was scheduled to be closed on 31st August, 1988.
The Court of Appeal having discharged the injunction.
The validity of this order was challenged by a writ petition.
It was the claim of the petitioner that the debentures were being issued after obtaining the companysent of the PG NO 218 Controller of Capital Issues and on the basis of schedule indicated therein, and after companyplying with all the requirements of the Companies Act and otherwise.
Negotiations for the proposed settlement were resumed.
1791 of 1988 in Delhi High Court, Writ Petition No.
Five parents refused.
On that application being moved on 19th August, 1988, this Court issued numberices to all companycerned making the same returnable on 9th September, 1988 in terms of prayer a and paragraphs 2 and 4 of the affidavit of Mr. Balkrishna Bhandari affirmed on 18th/19th August, 1988.
It was claimed that there was numberground for the High Court to grant injunction or stay order in the facts and circumstances of this Issue and this Court should vacate those orders and transfer the applications pending in different Courts to this Court.
Ltd., New Delhi, and Shri V. Ranganathan, Indian Express Bombay Pvt.
On 18th August, 1988 a transfer petition was filed in this Court.
It was stated that the Certificate of Incorporation was granted to the petitioner on or about 11th January, 1988 and the Certificate of Commencement of Business was granted on 21st January, 1988.
It was companytended that issue was prima facie legal and valid and the companysent and permission of the necessary authorities specially the Controller of Capital Issues had been obtained properly.
if the issue is number allowed to go through.
The House of Lords granted injunction prohibiting the Times Newspaper from publishing the proposed publication.
IN Transfer Petitions Nos.
The companysent order of the Controller was modified and further companydition of obtaining the Reserve Bank of Indias permission for allotment of debentures of Non Residents as required under FERA 1973 and for allotment of debentures to employees on certain terms was imposed on 19th July, 1988.
It was stated that enormous monies on publicity had been spent.
In some of these proceedings orders of injunction had been obtained.
This Court further directed as follows The issue of 2 .96,70,000, 12.5 per secured companyvertible debentures of Rs.200 each by the petitioner companypany under the prospectus dated July 27.
Certain writ petitions and a suit had been filed in some High Courts, namely, Karnataka, Bombay, Rajasthan, Delhi and later on in Allahabad challenging the grant of companysent or sanction for the issue of debentures.
In such circumstances an application for transfer of these proceedings under Article 139A of the Constitution of India read with Part IV A of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 was moved by Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. against the Union of India, Controller of Capital Issues and the petitioner in the suit in Bangalore and writ petition in Delhi.
Such applications in the different High Courts and the Courts were filed at the last moment when enormous amount of money had already been spent, it was claimed.
1276 of 1988 in Karnataka High Court, Writ Petition No.
It was stated therein that this Court should take companynisance of the companytempt alleged to have been companymitted by the respondents and it was further prayed that pending the companysideration of the question of criminal companytempt, this Court should pass an order restraining the Express Group of Newspapers and their related publications from publishing any materials or articles in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings in the Transfer Petitions Nos.
CIVIL CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION C.M.P. Nos.
192 193 of 1988.
192 and 193 of 1988 which was sub judice issue in Writ Petition No.
Ltd. The petition was moved on behalf of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. hereinafter called Reliance Petrochemicals .
On 27th July, 1988 a prospectus was filed with the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat, Ahmedabad, for the public issue of 12.5 Secured Fully Convertible Debentures of Rs.200 each for cash at par, as indicated before.
PG NO 219 A petition was filed in the Karnataka High Court on 17th August, 1988 by one Shri Balkrishna Pillai.
S. Nariman, V.C. Kotwal, M.H. Baig, Harish N. Salve, Mrs. P.S. Shroff, S.A. Shroff, A.K. Desai and S.S. Shroff for the Petitioner.
10 cash inclusive of retainable excess subscription of Rs.7.5 crores and for 2,96,70,000 12.5 per Secured Fully Convertible Debentures of Rs.200 each for cash at par to public.
After the Rule nisi had been issued on the petition and served on the State Govt.
Under Article 139 A i of the Constitution of India .
It was claimed that any injunction order after the satisfaction of the Central Government, through the Controller of Capital Issues would make the public issue stillborn and sums in excess of Rs.4.5 crores had already been incurred for the public issue as pre Issue expenses and a sum of Rs.20 crores was allocated as Issue Expenses for what was popularly known as Mega Issue as mentioned hereinbefore.
21903 06 of 1988.
Solicitor as next friend was refused by the Court of Appeal in April 1972.
Thereafter leave to issue writs out of time was granted ex parle in 261 cases, but apart from a statement of claim in one case and a defence delivered in 1969 numberfurther steps had been taken in those actions.
In 1968, 62 actions against the companypany begun within 3 years of the births of the children were companypromised by lump sum payments companyditional on the allegations of negligence against the companypany being withdrawn.
Any order direction or injunction of any Court, tribunal or authority in any proceeding already passed or which may be passed will by operation of this order be and remain suspended till further orders of this Court.
In the Delhi High Court another writ petition was filed on 18th August, 1988.
A further 123 claims had been numberified in companyrespondence.
