Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

SC Lauds Azim Premji For Pardoning Person Who Filed Over 70 Frivolous Cases Against Him

Posted in: Criminal Law
Tue, Mar 15, 22, 11:13, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4016
Azim Hasham Premji v India Awake For Transparency that: We are happy to note that Mr Azim Hasham Premji has taken a constructive view of the matter and agreed to forgive the past conduct of Mr Subramanian. We all too must always emulate what Mr Azim Hasham Premji has chosen to do in this leading case

In the fitness of things, the Supreme Court in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Azim Hasham Premji & Anr. v. India Awake For Transparency & Ors in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1177-1179/2021 with Criminal Appeal Nos.1180-1182/2021 (II-C) Criminal Appeal Nos.1183-1185/2021 (II-C) Criminal Appeal Nos.1186-1187/2021 (II-C) Criminal Appeal No.1188/2021 (II-C) Contempt Petition(C) NO.60/2022 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1177- 1179/2021 delivered just recently on March 10, 2022 in exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction lauded the constructive view taken by ex-Wipro Chairman Azim Hasham Premji in forgiving one R Subramanian, who through his companies had filed more than 70 misconceived cases against Mr. Premji and his associates. The Apex Court noted that:
We are happy to note that Mr Azim Hasham Premji has taken a constructive view of the matter and agreed to forgive the past conduct of Mr Subramanian. We all too must always emulate what Mr Azim Hasham Premji has chosen to do in this leading case!

To start with, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh of Apex Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that:
The present proceedings have shown that there is nothing impossible as long as the parties are willing to see the reality of a given situation. More than 70 litigations, misconceived as they are, initiated by the respondents will be brought to an end on a realization by Mr. R. Subramanian, who seeks to repent for his past conduct and wants to start a new chapter in his life. We had observed in the order dated 08.02.2022 his intent and also noticed that even if he redeems for his past conduct in these various proceedings, it will not take away from his responsibility and liability towards the various claims in Subhiksha/Viswapriya litigations where there are obligations to depositors. In fact, the failure of those schemes is what has caused the financial burden on Mr. Subramanian and those groups, and in his endeavour to escape his liability, including to the appellants before us, the litigations were initiated.

As it turned out, the Bench then observes in the next para that:
On the last date of hearing Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel had agreed to persuade Mr. Azim Hasham Premji to take a more compassionate view of the conduct of Mr. R. Subramanian and to put a closure to all issues, subject to the condition that he and the associates who face a barrage of litigation receive an apology for his past conduct from Mr. Subramanian. We had taken Mr. Subramanian’s assurances on the last date, hoping that he traverses a new path. In terms of the request of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the affidavit to be filed on behalf of Mr. Subramanian had to undertake four aspects as set out in the order:

  1. An apology for the past conduct including initiating these proceedings in different forums;
  2. An undertaking to withdraw all proceedings whether in this matter or otherwise initiated by him which are not in defence of claims in Subhiksha/Vishwapriya;
  3. An undertaking for the future not to launch any proceedings and undertaking to wind up this organization and not to create any more organization nor to use his brilliance and help of other people to create further litigation;
  4. The list of companies which will have any amount in them will be surrendered to Mr. Mukul Rohatgi’s clients.


To be sure, the Bench then states in the next para that:
Mr. Subramanian has filed an affidavit as per his assurance given on the last date of hearing with annexures of properties, list of companies and details of PILs filed by him pending before the Courts.

On a positive note, the Bench then concedes that:
We are happy to note that Mr. Azim Hasham Premji has taken a constructive view of the matter and agreed to forgive the past conduct of Mr. Subramanian, more so, in view of the financial issues he has faced and to take also a compassionate view of the amounts due from him to the group companies of Mr. Premji.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then points out that:
Learned senior counsel for the appellants have placed before us submissions in pursuance to our order dated 08.02.2022 and the affidavit filed by Mr. Subramanian dated 15.02.2022. Annexure A to the submissions is the summarized form of protection/ safeguards which the appellants seek from this Court while Annexure B are the litigations filed by Mr. Subramanian through India Awake Transparency Private Limited and Wholesale Trading Services Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. Premji Group of companies and various professionals associated with the Group in indirect litigations. Mr. Subramanian fairly states that despite the best research of the appellants, Annexure B may not be exhaustive and there are some other cases also filed by him. He undertakes to file a comprehensive list expanding on what is already in Annexure B within a week.

Needless to say, the Bench then observes that:
We have gone through the submissions note, more specifically, the safeguards which are required by the appellant.

Be it noted, the Bench then envisages that:
The first and most important aspect which this Court understands is the significance of a public apology from Mr. Subramanian in leading new papers at at the cost of the appellants.

Furthermore, the Bench then discloses that:
A draft of the public apology has been annexed to the note and we approve of the same with one modification that while referring to the Directors, Auditors and Executives, the names of the two other appellants before us should be specifically included as they are a well recognized firm of Chartered Accountants and independent Directors.

Quite significantly, the Bench then enunciates that:
We thus, give our imprimatur to this public apology to be published in the form placed before us with the aforesaid modification. The other aspects are set out in Annexure A from serial No.2 to serial No.8, which read as under:

2. Applications for withdrawal of the various proceedings pending before courts, tribunals, statutory authorities and govt departments, which should specifically state that the proceedings initiated, and complaints and representations made against the Appellants and their Group (which term should be understood in a comprehensive manner to include all Group companies, firms, and other entities of Mr. Azim Premji and also their Directors, partners, and officers and present and past auditors and other associated professionals including Senior Advocates and Advocates) were founded on incorrect understanding of facts and legal provisions and that accordingly the same should be dismissed as withdrawn. A list of such proceedings to the best of the knowledge of the Appellants is annexed as Annexure B here. Mr. R. Subramanian to state whether there are any other proceedings, complaints, representations pending before any other court, tribunal, authority and also submit similar applications for withdrawal in respect of the same. Mr. R. Subramanian may be directed to furnish a copy of each of such withdrawal application to the Appellants and also to file a compliance report to this Hon’ble Court confirming withdrawal of all the proceedings and matters within 6 weeks.

3. Undertaking by Mr. R. Subramanian to wind up India Awake for Transparency Private Limited at the earliest and forthwith efface the content of allegations against the Appellants and their Group on its website and not to retain or publish any material against the Applicants and their Group by any medium, directly or through any other entity or person.

4. Undertaking by Mr. R. Subramanian not to institute or pursue any proceedings of any kind, either directly or through any other entity or person or against any person, based on any contentions or allegations whatsoever against the Appellants and their group.

5. Mr. R. Subramanian’s conviction for criminal contempt and sentence in terms of Karnataka High Court judgment dated 14.01.2022 in Case No.CRL CCC No.9 of 2021 be suspended for a period of 3 years, during which period his conduct can be monitored and due compliance with his undertakings verified. To uphold the Majesty of Courts, Mr. R. Subramanian must tender his unconditional apology to the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in respect of the charges in the said case.

6. Mr. R. Subramanian’s conviction and sentence under S 138 of NI Act in terms of Judgment and Order of Trial Court dated 31.12.2021 be suspended until it is discovered that there are unencumbered assets belonging to him, in which event, Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, 100% owned by Azim Premji Trust, a philanthropic trust, be permitted be recover its due from such discovered assets. In this regard, this Hon’ble Court may direct Mr. R. Subramanian to furnish to the Appellants an annual statement of his gross assets and networth.

7. Costs imposed by Court orders on India Awake and Wholesale Trading Services Private Limited be directed to be paid within a period of one month.

8. Mr. R. Subramanian to be directed to file a copy of the Hon’ble Court’s order in every legal proceedings, complaints, representations etc. initiated by him, directly or indirectly, through any other person, when espousing any public cause.

For sake of clarity, the Bench then while clarifying states that:
Mr. Subramanian, having gone through the same, accepts the same and undertakes before this court to abide by the same insofar as Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned. Insofar as No.8 is concerned, Mr. Subramanian has already given an assurance as recorded aforesaid. Mr. Subramanian also does not have any issue with serial No.6 and accepts that if any assets come in any form, they will be utilized in the manner provided in serial No.6.

Going ahead, the Bench then added that:
As far as serial No.7 is concerned, Mr. Subramanian expresses his limitation on account of his financial inability. As to whether these costs should be waived on that account or not is something this Court will consider while examining the issue of closure of the contempt proceedings which have to be kept pending as per the view of this Court accepting the suggestion made at serial No.5. The proceedings in that behalf shall be listed in the last working week of December, 2023 for necessary orders.

Most forthrightly, the Bench then maintained that:
We have given thought to the impugned judgments and in view of the settlement, are not required to bestow a greater consideration and pen down a detailed order. Suffice to say, we find that the initiation of the criminal proceedings as well as the judgment of the High Court are completely unsustainable and accordingly set aside both of them. We also make it clear that the proceedings not only in PCR Nos.2,3 and 4 of 2018 will come to an end with this but proceedings in PCR Nos.28 and 29/2020 pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, the subject matter of Contempt Petition [C] No.60/2022, also stand quashed.

Quite rightly, the Bench then also concedes that:
The appellants also are concerned that in view of all these proceedings there should be a final quietus to the order of the Karnataka High Court dated 26.03.2015 in Co.P. Nos.182-185/2014 sanctioning the amalgamation between three amalgamating companies viz.Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Napean Trading and Investment Company Private Limited and Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited so that the same are not disputed on any grounds whatsoever by any party. We do believe that this aspect has been unnecessarily agitated again and again and would like to affirm the order of amalgamation passed by the Karnataka High Court.

It must be noted that the Bench then states that:
Mr. Subramanian makes an additional request. It is his say that in his endeavour to start a new chapter in his life, he would like to meet the liabilities towards the depositors of the Subhiksha/Viswapriya litigation at the earliest. In this behalf, he has pointed to us that in terms of the orders passed on 16.10.2015 in Criminal OP No.23901/2015, he was required to disclose a list of all his assets which he had and there are 14 properties, out of them six were attached. His concern is that the 14 properties may be put to sale at the earliest so as to at least meet his financial liabilities to the extent possible to the depositors of the schemes. He fairly states that insofar as the criminal proceedings are concerned, they will naturally have to take their own path.

What’s more, the Bench then states that:
In respect of the aforesaid, we call upon him to move an appropriate application in those proceedings placing our order before that Court for consideration of his prayer as may be determined appropriate by the Judge now holding the roster. Mr. Subramanian also requests that in view of the assurances he has given to the Court today, he desires that India Awake Transparency Pvt. Ltd. and the Wholesale Trading Services Pvt. Ltd. should be struck off from the Register of the Companies by the Registrar of Companies, Chennai from the list of companies registered there. We think this is a fair suggestion and agreed to by learned senior counsel for the appellants. Thus, the Registrar of Companies, Chennai is to take necessary action forthwith in accordance with law to strike off those companies from the array of registered companies. However, in case there are any pending investigations qua them, they will not be impeded by the order we have passed. We clarify at the request of learned senior counsel for the appellants that Mr. Subramanian will forthwith see that the websites of these two companies are closed down so that their propensity for misuse by third parties does not arise.

Truth be told, the Bench then acknowledges that:
We must record our satisfaction at having facilitated the parties in arriving at the aforesaid arrangement and bringing the present proceedings and a number of other proceedings to an end. The appeals accordingly stand allowed and the Contempt Petition stands closed in the aforesaid terms.

Quite remarkably, the Bench then holds that:
Before parting, we must note that the criminal appeals being Diary No.4286/2022 and 4289/2022 which follow the plea in the present settlement and on which orders would be required by us are stated to be ready for listing. They can be listed on 15th March, 2022. The Registry to take necessary steps qua the same so that we can pass orders therein also. Till the listing of those, the sentence qua the respondent will remain suspended. No orders as to costs.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in the concluding para that:
The Contempt Petition is closed in view of the orders passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1177-1179/2021 and connected matters.

In conclusion, it would certainly not amount to an exaggeration to say that the Apex Court has very rightly lauded ex-Wipro Chairman – Azim Hasham Premji for pardoning the person named R Subramanian who filed over 70 frivolous cases against him. The Bench allowed the appeals filed by Mr Azim Premji and his wife Ms Yaseem Azim Premji to quash the proceedings before a Bengaluru Magistrate on a criminal complaint filed by India Awake for Transparency (a private company floated by Mr Subramanian) alleging illegality in transfer of shares assets to Premji’s trust from his private companies. No doubt, Azim Premji has set a very healthy precedent which we all must always definitely strive to follow!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top