Registry should restrain itself and not delve into judicial acts: Madras High Court after Registry asks petitioner to separate connected pleas

The "ridiculous" suggestion of the Madras High Court's Registry to a petitioner to separate certain connected petitions, which ultimately got sent to different Benches of the Court, prompted the Madras High Court to caution Registry officials that they cannot exercise judicial powers they do not possess (Sharpoorji Pallonji and Company Private Ltd v. Union of India and ors)..The Court found that the case brought to light "the attempt of the Registry in this Court to discharge judicial functions, which it does not possess.".The manner in which the matter was stated to have been split on the advise of the Registry officials also prompted the Court to orally remark, while addressing the petitioner's counsel,"Knock on the heads of those who told you this (at the Registry). They are coming to High Court wearing black jackets, but they don't get to adjudicate.".A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu was hearing a plea moved by Sharpoorji Pallonji and Company Private Ltd..The petitioner had challenged the validity of certain orders passed under the Sections 231 and 232 of the Companies Act, 2013. In connection with this, the petitioner had also assailed the validity of a July 13, 2017 notification issued under Section 462 of the 2013 Act, whereby matters pertaining to amalgamation and demergers of private companies was excluded from the purview of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the Central government was assigned the role..The petitioner had contested the Constitutional validity of this move, terming it to be excessive delegation, although the Court today opined that “there may not be much merit to such a contention.”.Pertinently, when the petitioner filed combined petitions to challenge the Central government’s orders together with the validity of the June 13, 2017 notification and the propriety of Section 462, the Registry is stated to have advised the petitioner to file separate petitions. .The Court was told that the Registry had called for separate petitions so that the challenge to the Act and the validity of the notification would be placed before a Division Bench, whereas the challenge to the notifications would be placed before a single-Bench..The Division Bench today minced no words in terming the Registry’s advice as “utterly ridiculous and completely devoid of an element of sense.”.The Court explained that when challenges are made to the validity of a statute or a rule, there must be context in which the challenge is made. A statutory provision or a rule may not be challenged without there being a sequitur (consequence) thereto, it remarked.."Ordinary it would involve the challenge to an order on the applicability of a rule or any notice issued in such regard which prompts the challenge to the rule or the statutory provision which enables the order or notice to be made … Courts do not take provisions of statutes and academically decide the validity without first ascertaining the relevance of such decision in the context of the lis,” the Court observed..In asking for the combined petitions in this case to be separated, the Court found that this context was lost..Criticising the Registry officials for having insisted on such segregation, the Court went on to record in its order,"The Registry should restrain itself and not delve into judicial acts or require the ridiculous separation of the immediate challenge from the challenge to the validity of any statutory provision or rule.”.The case at hand cannot be separated, just like a declaration cannot be issued without there being a prayer for a consequential injunction or a reference cannot be made without there being a case in which the result of the reference would be applied to, the Court added..The Court went on to observe that there were, in fact, instances in the High Court where the main matter was dispose of, but the issue involved was referred to a larger Bench. This, the Court opined, was “equally ridiculous” since the answer to the reference cannot be applied to any matter.“No reference may be taken up for any academic purpose,” the Court emphasised..The Court was also prompted to recount cases in the High Court where adjudicating authorities or arbitrators and arbitral tribunals are “needlessly impleaded” even though there is no attack on such parties in the petitions except to the orders or awards passed by the adjudicating bodies or arbitrators..“Unless allegations are levelled agains the adjudicating authorities qua the conduct of the adjudicator or against the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal on grounds of misconducting themselves or misconducting the proceedings at the personal level, adjudicating authorities and arbitrators or arbitral tribunals are … avoidable parties whose names are to be struck off at the receiving stage of the petitions unless it is indicated that personal allegations have been levelled against them,” the Court said..The Court proceeded to direct the Registrar General of the High Court to ensure that the receiving personnel at the Registry are made aware of these elementary principles..The Court added that a training programme can also be conducted on this aspect at the judicial academy as expeditiously as possible so such mistakes are not repeated..As for the case prompting the discussion today, the Court directed that the de-tagged petitions appear together so that it may be taken up by the Division Bench together. .On the Additional Solicitor General’s request, the Central government was given three weeks’ time to file counter affidavits in the matter. The matter is expected to be taken up after four weeks..[Read Order]