1. The second respondent-Tamilnad Mercantile Bank was established by the Nadar Community. During the period between 1996 to 2003, the Annual General Meetings could not be held because of an impasse created by the refusal of the Reserve Bank of India to approve the transfer of shares by shareholders. On 14.10.2003, the Company Law Board directed that the Annual General Meeting of seven years from 1996 to 2003 be held. The Meetings were held. The new Board of Directors assumed charge. This gave rise to objections which were rejected by the Company Law Board. The 82nd Annual General Meeting was scheduled to be held on 24.12.2004 One day before that, the appellants herein filed C.S No. 981 of 2004 for an injunction restraining the defendants, their men or servants or any other person claiming under them from preventing the members whose names are registered in the Register of Members of the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited or their duly authorised proxies from participating and exercising their voting rights in the forthcoming Annual General Meeting dated 24.12.2004 On 6.7.2006, in Application No. 1979 of 2006 filed for rejection of Plaint, an order was passed for posting the Suit for withdrawal and it was claimed by the applicant that nothing survived in the Suit, so it was posted to 18.7.2006 for withdrawal. Proceedings in contempt in respect of an order in this Suit culminated in Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2006. The Supreme Court on 12.7.2006, passed an order and sent the matter back to this Court for consideration afresh. On 18.7.2006, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he is not willing to withdraw the Suit.

3. On 26.7.2006, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order in O.A Nos. 597 to 599 of 2006 in the above Suit. The O.As were respectively for an interim injunction restraining the second respondent-Bank herein from holding its 83rd Annual General Meeting on 27.7.2006 or on any subsequent dates; for an interim injunction restraining the Bank from permitting the proxies issued by Powers of Attorney holders who were not registered with the Registrar of Assurance in terms of Article 35 of the Articles of Association of the Bank in the Annual or Extraordinary General Meetings of the Bank; and for an interim injunction restraining the Bank from preventing the members whose names are found in the Register of Members of the Bank or their duly authorised proxies from participating and exercising their voting rights in the Annual and Extraordinary General Meetings of the Bank, pending disposal of the Suit. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the above order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2006, passed the following order:

“Till such time, without postponing the meeting, there can be a better arrangement to conduct the Annual General Meeting as scheduled on 27.7.2006 so far as the subject matters 1, 2 and 6 found in the agenda (by show of hands) are concerned and regarding the other subject matter Nos. 3 to 5 found in the agenda, the General Body Meeting may be adjourned until further orders of the Court and to which meeting, fresh proxies may be allowed in accordance with the result of the enquiry to be made in these Applications. Suppose, the proxies of GPA holders were not allowed to participate in the election, then no fresh proxies need be made. There is also no serious objection by anyone concerned (counsel).

Since the subject matters 3 to 5 in the agenda for the General Body Meeting on 27.7.2006 are going to be adjourned, the erstwhile Directors shall be directed to continue in the office and to maintain status quo until further orders of this Court.

With these observations, the Applications stand posted to 4.8.2006 So far as the impleading Application is concerned, post it after service on that date.”

After this, the second respondent filed O.A No. 23 of 2007 for directions regarding holding of the 84th Annual General Meeting. On 14.6.2007, the second respondent filed an affidavit in C.S No. 981 of 2004 placing on record all the events that took place subsequently with regard to transfer of shares and it was submitted that the Suit itself had become infructuous since the Suit was restricted to the power of attorney only and since after the sale of the shares, the Register of Members had also been corrected and delete the names of the vendors by including the names of the purchasers had been deleted. On 12.9.2007, in Application No. 23 of 2007, all the counsel, including the counsel for the appellants, agreed for extension of time for holding the Annual General Meeting. The time was periodically extended. Then, on 27.3.2008, R. Balasubramanian, J. (Retired) was appointed as Chairman to conduct the 83rd, 84th and 85th Annual General Meetings. This order was passed in the presence of the appellants herein.

4. On 29.4.2008, counsel for the second respondent mentioned to the learned Single Judge that it may be clarified whether the holding of the meeting would be in violation of the order dated 26.7.2006 On the same day, i.e 29.4.2008, the appellants herein filed C.S No. 481 of 2008 challenging the transfer of 95,418 shares and filed O.A Nos. 534 to 536 of 2008. An order was passed that the meeting would be held, “but any resolution passed in the Annual General Meeting shall not be implemented until further orders”. Against this, the appellants herein moved O.S.A Nos. 192 to 194 of 2008. They were dismissed by the Division Bench during the Summer Vacation, holding that the order dated 29.4.2008 sufficiently protected the interest of all the parties. The appellants had, in the mean time, filed Application No. 1918 of 2008 for a status quo regarding the Register of Members and O.A No. 621 of 2008 for the relief of injunction regarding the agenda of election of Directors. When the matter came up for hearing, arguments were not advanced. The Application was adjourned to 9.6.2008 It may be relevant here to note that O.S No. 3199 of 2008 has been filed by some parties before the City Civil Court at Chennai, in which injunction was sought for, and also Writ Petition No. 6255 of 2008.

5. Mr. K.M Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge appeared to have gone on the mistaken impression that the counsel for the appellants submitted that the Contempt Petition had been filed without his knowledge and contrary to the undertaking given by the learned Senior Counsel, and that there are e-mails and subsequent communications between the party and the counsel, which would show that the observations of the learned Single Judge that the counsel had excused himself from appearing for the appellants may not be correct. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that it is purely on this ground that the Injunction Applications had been dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the appellants had indulged in forum shopping may not be correct. The order passed by S.R Singharavelu, J. was that Agenda Item Nos. 3 to 5 could not be taken up in the 83rd Annual General Meeting until the enquiry into the matters specified therein is completed, and the words “until further orders” cannot be construed to mean that any orders passed thereafter would put an end to the embargo placed by the learned Single Judge on taking up Items 3 to 5. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that there was no suppression of material facts and in fact, the order passed in the interim Applications in C.S No. 481 of 2008 had been placed in the typed set of papers along with the contempt petition. It was also submitted that basically there is no difference between the order passed on 29.4.2008 keeping in abeyance the implementation of the resolutions and the order passed in the Sub-Application that the resolution or item of business relating to election of Directors should not be implemented and that in effect, both amount to the same. It was further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that out of the two appellants, only one had filed the Contempt Petition and therefore, even assuming without admitting that there was abuse of process of law, the dismissal of the Injunction Application had grievously prejudiced the other appellant who had not filed the Contempt Petition.

6. Mr. A.L Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent-Tamilnad Mercantile Bank submitted that this is a clear case of abuse of process of law and the selfsame appellant had allowed orders to be passed subsequent to the orders passed by S.R Singharavelu, J. and not having challenged the order by which R. Balasubramanian, J. (retired) was appointed as Chairman to conduct the 83rd, 84th and 85th Annual General Meetings, the appellants cannot press for any injunction. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that it is curious that the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants should now say that there is no material difference between the order obtained in the Sub-Application and the initial order passed in these Applications on 29.4.2008 since against the latter order, the appellants had filed the Appeal, which was dismissed and the appellants had not obtained any order from the Supreme Court.

7. Mr. M.S Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 14th respondent submitted that this is a clear case of abuse of process of law and forum shopping and relied upon two judgments.

8. Mr. Aravind P. Dattar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 10 and 18 submitted that orders that should be obtained from the Company Law Board are sought for in the Applications filed before this Court and foreign investors who had parted with valuable money are now distressed to find that they have been shuttled from one proceeding to another in various Courts by the appellants who, by sheer abuse of process of law, are obtaining interim orders of one sort or the other.

9. The relief of injunction is an equitable relief and generally, the conduct of the person praying for injunction is something that weighs with a judge's mind in deciding whether to grant the injunction or not. In paragraph 3 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has referred to the occasion on which these Applications came up before the learned Single Judge and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs pressed for an ex parte order of interim injunction on the ground that the Annual General Meeting was scheduled to be held on 5.6.2008 The learned Single Judge has observed, “I passed an order directing the Annual General Meeting to go on; however, it was made clear that any resolution passed in the Annual General Meeting shall not be implemented until further orders of this Court”. But, no ex parte order of injunction was granted and therefore, the appellants herein filed Appeals in O.S.A Nos. 192 to 194 of 2008. The Division Bench also refused to grant interim injunction. The Division Bench held that the impugned order dated 29.4.2008 would amply protect the interest of the appellants. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants prayed that at least the votes cast by the different groups should be kept separately. The Division Bench refused to do so and dismissed the Appeals stating that it is for the learned Single Judge to deal with the matter and pass suitable orders. Against that, the plaintiffs filed a Special Leave Petition, but no interim orders were obtained. Therefore, these facts stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 are borne out by records and the fact remains that the appellants herein could not obtain interim orders of injunction in O.A Nos. 534 to 536 of 2008 either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench and have not till date obtained any interim order from the Supreme Court. The Division Bench had dismissed the Appeals on 6.5.2008 and till 26.5.2008, no orders could be secured by the appellants before the Supreme Court.

10. The Annual General Meeting was scheduled to be held on 5.6.2008 and therefore, another attempt was made by the appellants by filing a fresh Application for interim injunction restraining the respondents from considering or passing any resolution on the item of business relating to the election of office bearers. This is O.A No. 621 of 2008. The prayer in this Application is for an injunction restraining the respondents from considering or passing any resolution or item of business relating to the election of Directors of the second respondent at the ensuing 83rd, 84th and 85th Annual General Meetings. This was moved on 3.6.2008, but curiously, adjournment was asked for and was granted. On 5.6.2008, the Annual General Meetings were held under the Chairmanship of R. Balasubramanian, J. (retired) who was appointed by this Court by order dated 27.3.2008 in O.A No. 23 of 2004 in C.S No. 981 of 2004. The Chairman prepared the results as follows:

“Since the entire dispute revolved around the transfer of about 95418 shares, the Chairman appointed by this Court to preside over those three Annual General Meetings, conducted the proceedings in three different permutations and combinations. Thereafter, he prepared the results under each one of those permutations and combinations viz., —

(i) The possible results, if all the transferees were kept away from voting;

(ii) The possible results, if the voting rights of the transferees were restricted to 10%; and

(iii) The possible results, if the transferees were permitted in full to vote in the Meetings.

The results under all these three contingencies were kept in sealed covers by the Chairman of the Annual General Meetings and those sealed covers along with the reports of the Chairman were filed into Court on 9.6.2008, when all these 4 Applications came up for hearing.”

The sealed covers were opened by the learned Single Judge in open Court. Thereafter, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank was asked to take copies of the report filed and distribute it to the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the defendants so that the parties could know the outcome of the meetings. It was pointed out at that time that the position of Board of Directors may undergo a change in the light of the resolution passed at the meetings. Therefore, an order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 9.6.2008 permitting only the Managing Director of the Bank and the two nominees of the Reserve Bank of India to take decisions without permitting the erstwhile members of the Board to participate in the decision making process till all the Applications were heard and disposed of. Then, the Application again came up for hearing on 16.6.2008 On that date, an Application was moved by a third party for impleading himself. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants prayed for time. This was opposed on the ground that it is an attempt to prevent the implementation of the resolution either by filing Suits or moving a Contempt Petition. In response, “Mr. P.S Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs would not move any other petition till these applications are disposed of”. In view of this, the adjournment was granted by the learned Single Judge in spite of protests. Then, when the matter came up on 20.6.2008, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted as follows:

“Today, when the Applications were taken up for hearing, Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, fairly submitted that without his knowledge and without the knowledge of the learned Senior Counsel leading him in the matter, the plaintiffs moved a Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition No. 508 of 2008. In the said Contempt Petition, it appears that notice was ordered to the Managing Director on 20.6.2008 Pending Contempt Petition, an interim order of injunction has also been passed in Sub Application No. 163 of 2008 on 20.6.2008, restraining the Managing Director from implementing the resolutions or items of business relating to the election of the Directors of the Bank at the 83rd, 84th and 85th Annual General Meetings held on 5.6.2008 Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs himself produced a copy of the interim order passed in the Sub-Application in the Contempt Petition and submitted that this has happened behind his back and he felt embarrassed and very sorry about it. Therefore, the learned counsel wanted to withdraw his appearance, since he did not wish to appear for such a party any more.”

11. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, what actually transpired in Court was something different and there are letters and correspondences to prove that the Advocate continued to represent the appellants. We will not countenance such submissions. What is recorded by the learned Single Judge regarding what transpired in Court is accepted by us. If any party wishes to have what is recorded in Court corrected, then the proper procedure to be adopted is to move a Review Petition before the same Judge and as expeditiously as possible so that the alleged error can be rectified. It is not open to any party to contend in Appeal that what was recorded by a learned Judge was, in fact, not correctly recorded. In Commissioner of Endowments v. Vittal Rao, 2005 (4) SCC 120, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“Practice and procedure — Hearing — What transpired at the hearing — Statement of fact recorded in the judgment is conclusive of the facts so stated and cannot be contradicted by affidavit or other evidence — Party which feels that a fact has been wrongly recorded in the judgment must invite the attention of the Judge recording the statement immediately to the said fact, while the matter is still fresh in his mind and seek rectification — Further held, sometimes in rare and appropiate case, a party may be allowed to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice, but he cannot call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment — Constitution of India, Articles 136 and 226.”

In State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, 1982 (2) SCC 463, it was held by the Supreme Court thus:

“Practice and procedure — Statement of fact regarding proceedings in Court such such as admission or concession made by a party, recorded in the judgment of a Court — Held, is conclusive and not open to be contradicted in Appeal denying making of such statement — Only the Court recording the statement itself competent to rectify the error, if approached without delay — However, a plea that the statement was made under wrong appreciation of law may in rare case be allowed by Appellate Court in the interest of justice — Constitution of India, Articles 133, 134 and 136 — CPC, 1908, Ss. 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 107 — Cr.P.C, 1973, Ss. 372-382.”

Therefore, as far as we are concerned, we accept that in fact an undertaking was given on behalf of the appellants that no Application and no Petition, which includes a Contempt Petition, would be moved until the Injunction Applications are disposed of. But, a Contempt Petition was in fact moved without the knowledge of the learned Senior Counsel, for an injunction restraining the Managing Director from implementing the resolution or item of business relating to the election of Directors to the Bank at the 83rd, 84th and 85th Annual General Meetings. Then, the learned Single Judge would record that he would have adjourned the matter to another date to enable the appellants to engage a different counsel. But the President of the first plaintiff-Association, who had verified the pleadings, was present in Court. The learned Single Judge had questioned him as to the circumstances under which the Contempt Petition was moved contrary to the statement made at the Bar. He had stated that the Contempt Petition was moved on the basis that the convening of the Annual General Meeting was in violation of the order passed on 26.7.2006 in O.A Nos. 597 to 599 of 2006. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge had extracted the operative portion of the said order and he was of the opinion that the said order directed the maintenance of status quo only until furthers orders of this Court. But actually thereafter, orders had been passed in Application No. 23 of 2007 to convene the 83rd, 84th and 85th Annual General Meeting and the first plaintiff was a party not only to the earlier order granting extension of time to convene the meeting, but also a party to the order passed in Application No. 23 of 2007 and also the order passed on 27.3.2008 appointing R. Balasubramanian, J. (retired) as Chairman. No Appeal had been filed against any of these orders, which are all further orders passed after the order passed by S.R Singharavelu, J. The learned Single Judge was also satisfied that the first plaintiff was aware of all this. The facts recorded by the learned Single Judge are borne out by records. It is a fact that after the order passed in O.A Nos. 597 to 599 of 2006, furthers orders had been passed for the conduct of the 83rd, 84th and 85th Annual General Meetings.

12. Now, we will see if the facts were suppressed. The affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Petition is also enclosed in the paper book. Paragraph 2 deals with the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 3034 of 2006 by the Supreme Court. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are also reference to the said order. Paragraph 5 of the Contempt Petition deals with O.A Nos. 597 to 599 of 2006 in C.S No. 981 of 2004. Paragraph 6 is basically an extract of the order passed in the above original Application. Paragraph 7 also deals with what the learned Single Judge observed with regard to subject matter Nos. 3 to 5. In paragraph 8, it is stated that this order had become final as it had not been challenged by any of the parties till date. In paragraph 9, there is reference to O.A No. 23 of 2007 to convene the 84th Annual General Meeting. In paragraph 10, it is stated that when O.A No. 23 of 2007 was listed, O.A Nos. 597 to 599 of 2006 were also kept pending and they were also shown in the list. It is necessary for the purpose of this injunction Application to extract the other paragraphs in the Contempt Petition:

“11. I state that this Hon'ble Court was conscious of the fact that election of Directors cannot be held without deciding the dispute regarding the validity of the Power of Attorney for which the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter, pending disposal of O.A Nos. 597 — 599 of 2006 in C.S No. 981 of 2004.

12. I state that it is in the above circumstances this Hon'ble Court allowed the Bank to convene the 83rd, 84th and 85th AGM without modifying, setting aside or altering its earlier directions dated 26.7.2008 in O.A Nos. 597 — 599 of 2006 in C.S No. 981 of 2004 the same. The above said orders of this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clear and unambiguous.

13. I state that the above directions of the this Hon'ble Court regarding adjournment of election of Directors are the Annual General Meeting and its binding effect on the Annual General Meeting were intimated in writing to the Bank, its directors and Hon'ble Judge (Retd.), who was appointed to supervise the Annual General Meeting two days before the convening of the Annual General Meeting. A true copy of the representation dated 2.6.2008 given to the Bank, its Directors and the Hon'ble Judge supervising the Annual General Meeting is annexed herewith as Annexure-P4. A true copy of the proofs of receipt of the above representation on the Chairman of the Bank, Directors and Hon'ble Judge supervising the Annual General Meeting dated 2.6.2008 is annexed herewith as Annexure-P5.

14. I state that in spite of receipt of the above said written intimation requesting the Chairman to conduct the Annual General Meeting as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court dated 26.7.2006, the election of Directors was conducted at the Annual General Meeting.

15. I state that the conduct of the Chairman of the Bank to proceed with the election of Directors is contrary to the specific directions given in the order dated 26.7.06, since the above Applications O.A Nos. 597 — 599 of 2006 in C.S No. 981 of 2004 are pending till date before this Hon'ble Court and the agendas referred to and adjourned in the above cited order cannot be taken for consideration at the Annual General Meeting without deciding the said pending Applications.

16. I state that in the above circumstances, the Chairman of the Bank has committed contempt of Court by disobeying the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 26.7.2006 in O.A Nos. 597 — 599 of 2006 in C.S No. 981 of 2004 and is liable to be punished for contempt.

17. In the circumstances, the proceedings of the 83rd, 84th and 85th Annual General Meeting as far as relating to election of Directors to the Bank, which is in contrary to the specific directions of this Hon'ble Court dated 26.7.2006 is liable to be set aside.”

As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the Contempt Petition does not speak of the filing of C.S No. 481 of 2008, the orders passed on 29.4.2008, the O.S.As filed thereagainst and the dismissal of the O.S.As and the filing of the SLP. Nor does the Contempt Petition speak of the filing of O.A No. 621 of 2008 and the fact that till date, no orders had been obtained therein. The prayer in O.A No. 621 of 2008 is almost similar to the prayer sought for in the Sub-Application. It is in fact, a case of ‘six of one and half a dozen of the other’. Therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the Contempt Petition had been filed suppressing all these matters. We agree.

13. It does not advance the case of the appellants to say that the order passed on 29.4.2008 was enclosed in the typed set of papers. Did the appellants place all the facts before the learned Judge hearing the Contempt Petition ? They did not.

14. Is the finding that the appellants are guilty of forum shopping incorrect ? We think not. The appellants had been trying to stall the conduct of the Annual General Meetings. They did not succeed in getting any ex parte interim injunction on 29.4.2008 The Appeals were dismissed. Therefore, the appellants filed another Application before the Vacation Court hoping to get an interim order, but took an adjournment. Then, since it was not possible to stall the consequences of the conduct of the Annual General Meetings under the Chairmanship of R. Balasubramanian, J. (retired), they moved the Contempt Petition without disclosing any of these facts and obtained an order. If this is not forum shopping, we do know what is.

15. The principles on which all injunction orders are granted are well known and hardly need repetition. However, since Mr. M.S Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 14th respondent had placed some decisions before us, we will just refer to them. In M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Company, AIR 1995 SC 2372, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant case GBC had approached the High Court for the injunction order, granted earlier, to be vacated. Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending Suit or proceedings.”

In Rajiv Bhatia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 1999 (8) SCC 525, the Supreme Court disapproved of the filing of a Habeas Corpus Petition before another High Court after dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition by one High Court. In Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash, 1998 (4) SCC 577 too, the Supreme Court had made very caustic remarks regarding forum shopping. In Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (1) SCC 560, it was held by the Supreme Court that similar four issues in repeated Writ Applications amounted to abuse of process of law and heavy costs were awarded and held as follows:

“A Writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior Court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P Khair Industries this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of Writ Petitions amounts to criminal contempt.”

16. Another Association, claiming to be acting on behalf of the Shareholders of the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, had filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench to forbear the respondents-Reserve Bank of India and others from transferring or allowing respondents 3 to 5 to deal with 95,418 shares of the second respondent-Bank in any manner. This was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and on Appeal, a Division Bench held as follows:

“The Writ Petition filed by the appellant cannot have any personal grievance in the matter and at best, only its members can have any grievance. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition can only be filed by someone who is personally aggrieved. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is based on the existence of a right in favour of a person invoking the writ jurisdiction. The exception to the General Rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is Writ of Habeas Corpus or Quo Warranto or filed in public interest. Even assuming the members of the appellant's association is affected by an act of the second respondent, but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the members, Writ Petition at the instance of the association is not maintainable. Ordinarily, the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Merely because the first respondent/Reserve Bank of India has been arrayed as a party, the Court does not get jurisdiction to hear the writ petition since the main Writ Petition is against the second respondent, which is a private Bank.”

In fact, here too, the learned Senior Counsel questioned the locus standi of the appellants to move these Applications. In fact, it is rather unclear even from the pleadings as to which shareholders are the members of the Association.

17. Mr. M.S Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 14th respondent raised a question, whether after having received the consideration from the transfer of the shares, was it open to the appellants to avoid the consequences and allow the transferees from exercising their rights. The facts extracted above would show that the appellants have with impunity been filing Applications after Applications for almost the same relief, though in each, the prayer is somewhat differently worded, in order to disguise it as a different prayer. More than one Suit has been filed in this Court and we are given to understand, in Courts elsewhere. The appellants have not made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. More than that, the conduct of the appellants, the suppression of facts and the devious methods adopted by them leave us without any doubt that the appellants are not entitled to the grant of injunction. To grant an order of injunction merely because only one of the appellants had moved the Contempt Petition and not the other and therefore, the other appellant was entitled to a fair hearing is something that deserves to be rejected. In fact, it may not be by chance but by design that only one of the appellants chose to file the Contempt Petition and therefore, to grant any indulgence on this score would be indirectly rewarding the persons who have come to Court with unclean hands. In the result, we hold that on the ground of prima facie case and on grounds of equity, the appellants are not entitled to injunction and therefore, the dismissal of the Applications by the learned Single Judge deserves to be confirmed.

18. The Original Side Appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) payable by the appellants to the Madras High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Consequently, M.P Nos. 1 to 3; 1 to 3; 1 to 3; and 1 to 4 of 2008 in the respective Appeals are closed.