Claim of Ownership vs Being-in-Sub Judice: An RTI To The Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Claim of Ownership vs Being-in-Sub Judice: An RTI To The Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Posted on 09/01/2024 (GMT 13:42 hrs)

Being bored with ambiguous and superficial answers to our previous RTIs (especially this⤡ one) to various ministries, departments and other authorities, we have decided to put the question in our next RTI application in an abstract manner, as it is found in mathematical logic and across various subjects like Economics.

Thus, OBMA filed an RTI application on 22.12.2023 to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, asking the following question:

Can company X occupy or acquire company Y,  especially when the case on the ownership of Y is sub judice in the domestic court of law?

If the answer to the above question is NO, while X still claims ownership of Y (by taking blanket stay order from the apex court), is it not a case of trespassing and/or adverse possession of Y by violating the Tort Law? Please advice me in this regard by supplying the necessary information as per the existing corporate laws.

Given below is the RTI application:

rti-appl-mcaDownload

As remarked earlier, without explicitly mentioning the underlying fact of the DHFL scam, OBMA activists have decided to use free abstract variables such as “X, Y” in order to elicit the required information from the concerned authority, following the response to which it could be used as a tool for resistance against the manufactured financial abuse of the DHFL victims.

The REPLY to this came from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, on 09/01/2024, which stated the following:

Reference to the captioned RTI application, your kind attention is invited decision of the Honble Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, Civil Appeal No.6454 Of 2011. It is to state that a public authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences. It is also not required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any opinion or advice to an applicant. The information asked is in a nature of seeking legal interpretation of statutory provisions and thus not an information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

However, you may visit the said link:- https://www.mca.gov.in/content/mca/global/en/acts-rules/ebooks.html for the relevant Companies Act/ Rules/Circular/Notification.

rti-reply-mcaDownload

As directed in the RTI “reply” (whereby they are playing safe!), we opened the given URL, only to find the following:

Oh no! Well, it seems that both the RTI and the Government Websites are celebrating their gala holidays!

They are taking inspiration from the megalomaniac-narcissistic King Liar⤡‘s enjoyment at the cost of the taxpayers’ money:

N.B. We, as a pressure group, have filed more RTIs regarding DHFL Scam to continue our uninterrupted non-violent civil disobedience movement:

a) Asking SEBI and Supreme Court of India why the Wadhawan brothers’ full repayment proposals in the DHFL case were not considered.

b) Asking SEBI whether Fixed Deposit Holders can make use of the money in SEBI Investor Protection Fund.

c) Asking Supreme Court of India about the sub judice status of the cases related to the DHFL Scam.