SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is filed to implead the applicant as a party/respondent in C.P. No. 496 of 2000. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application read as under : The applicant is a Ph.D., in Economics and was a visiting Professor of Economics in the University of Harvard, U.S.A. The applicant was a Union Cabinet Minister during 1990-91 and he filed several public interest litigations. In the affidavit, there is a reference to the steps taken by the applicant in filing a writ petition against the disinvestment of shares of the SPIC group held by TIDCO in favour of a few individuals and the order passed in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. According to the applicant, M.C.C. Finance Ltd. is a part of the group of companies of the late M. A. Chidambaram. In the affidavit, there is also a reference to the default committed by M.C.C. Finance Ltd. in the repayment of principal and interest to the depositors and the appointment of a Special Officer by the Reserve Bank of India with a view to monitor the progress of recoveries due to the company and disposal of the amount due to the depositors. The applicant also referred to the order of this court dated August 21, 2000, with reference to the appointment of one Srinivasan as an administrator and serious allegations have been made against the appointment of Mr. S. Srinivasan as an administrator and prayed for the removal of Srinivasan as the administrator. The applicant has also stated that he filed this application to implead himself as a party/respondent to protect the interest of the depositors of M.C.C. Finance Ltd. and he also filed two other applications, one questioning the appointment of Mr. S. Srinivasan as an administrator and the other restraining the said Srinivasan from functioning as an administrator of M.C.C. Finance Ltd. Meanwhile, the said Srinivasan tendered his resignation and in his place, another administrator was appointed and therefore, the applications filed questioning the appointment of Srinivasan as an administrator and restraining the said Srinivasan from functioning as the administrator have become infructuous and accordingly, both the applications have already been dismissed.Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a necessary and proper party. He referred to the earlier writ petition filed by the applicant against the disinvestment of shares of SPIC held by TIDCO in favour of a few individuals and submitted that the applicant is having vital information regarding diversion of funds of M.C.C. Finance Ltd. and if he is impleaded as a party/respondent, it would facilitate him to furnish the information known to him without filing independent applications. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant is interested in the welfare of the depositors of M.C.C. Finance Ltd. and since he has the capacity to gather information and he is in possession of important information relating to the diversion of funds, in the interest of general public and to protect the interest of various depositors, the applicant should be impleaded as a party/respondent in the company petition.

(2.) MR. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel submitted that the applicant is not a necessary party to the company petition. Learned senior counsel submitted that the applicant is neither a depositor, nor a contributory and if the applicant is having important information relating to the diversion of funds of M.C.C. Finance Ltd., it is always open to him to divulge the same either to the court or to the administrator or the provisional liquidator and hence, the application should be rejected.