New Delhi [India], August 26 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the sale of shares of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE) by IFCI Limited, holding that the petitioner had failed to disclose an earlier case filed by him before the Bombay High Court on substantially similar issues.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia also imposed exemplary costs of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner, Parinay Sharma. The amount has been directed to be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association within two weeks.
The PIL had sought directions relating to IFCI’s divestment of its NSE shareholding. The petitioner had also sought disclosure of the ownership and ultimate beneficiaries of certain Mauritius-based funds, including DVI Fund (Mauritius) Ltd. and Soach Global Opportunities Fund, besides an examination by SEBI and possible investigation by the CBI.
According to the petition, IFCI, which was a founding shareholder of NSE, held 5.55 per cent of NSE’s paid-up equity share capital as on March 31, 2015. During 2015-16, IFCI sold 11.25 lakh NSE shares in four transactions to DVI Fund, Soach Global and two other transferees for a total consideration of Rs 440.93 crore.
The petitioner alleged that the shares were sold at a lower valuation and claimed that the transaction had caused a substantial notional loss to IFCI and, consequently, the public exchequer.
However, the court did not examine the merits of these allegations. The court noted that the petitioner had already filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court on May 2, 2026, concerning substantially similar issues. That petition was pending before the Bombay High Court even before the Delhi PIL was filed on August 5, 2026.
The Delhi High Court observed that the petitioner had not disclosed the Bombay proceedings in the present PIL. Instead, paragraph 41 of the PIL stated that no earlier petition seeking the same or substantially similar reliefs had been filed before any court or tribunal.
The bench said that a person approaching the High Court through a PIL has a higher duty to disclose all important facts and must approach the court with “clean hands” and complete honesty.
The court also found that there was a substantial overlap between the two cases. While the Bombay petition sought disclosure of NSE’s promoter group, shareholders and ultimate beneficiaries, the Delhi PIL sought disclosure of the ownership and control structure of DVI Fund, Soach Global and similar entities in relation to the same NSE shareholding.
The court observed that the petitioner appeared to have used different wording in the Delhi petition to make the prayers appear different from those in the Bombay case.
The court said that suppression of a material fact or making an incorrect statement on oath can disentitle a litigant from relief at the very beginning, regardless of the merits of the underlying case. It noted that this principle applies even more strictly in PIL matters because such petitions claim to raise issues in the public interest.
In view of the non-disclosure of the earlier Bombay proceedings and the incorrect statement made in the Delhi PIL, the court held that it was not necessary to examine the allegations concerning IFCI’s sale of NSE shares.
The court concluded that the petitioner had not approached it bona fide and had abused the process of law by filing the PIL while suppressing the earlier proceedings.
The petition was accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs 5 lakh. The court also declined the petitioner’s request to reduce the amount of costs. (ANI)
Related reading
