'Unclean Hands': Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging IFCI's NSE Share Divestment, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs
The Delhi High Court imposed Rs. 5 Lakh cost on a PIL litigant seeking disclosure of information on divestment of Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd's (IFCI) shareholding in National Stock Exchange of India Limited, observing that petitioner had suppressed pendency of another plea with overlapping issues before the Bombay High Court.
The petitioner had alleged irregularities in the divestment of IFCI Ltd's shareholding in NSE claiming that it led to a public exchequer. He claimed that the IFCI Ltd. held 24,97,750 equity shares of NSE as on 31.03.2015, constituting 5.55% of its paid-up equity share capital. During the financial year 2015-16, IFCI divested 11,25,000 equity shares of NSE in four tranches in favour of DVI Fund, Soach Global and two undisclosed transferees, for consideration of ₹440.93 crores.
It was alleged that these transactions subsequently formed the subject matter of media reports, including reports referring to an inquiry by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office into former Chairmen and Managing Directors of IFCI. The Petitioner lodged complaints to the Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs and to the Director, CBI. In the interregnum, NSE filed its Draft Red Herring Prospectus with SEBI on 17.06.2026, structured as an Offer for Sale by existing shareholders. IFCI, by its response dated 01.07.2026, stated that the divestment of NSE shares had been undertaken with the approval of SEBI, after following due process, applicable regulatory guidelines and a competitive bidding process conducted through IDFC Securities Limited.
It was alleged that shares transferred by IFCI between 15.09.2015 and 01.07.2016 were sold at a valuation lower than that reflected in a comparable transaction undertaken in June 2013, wherein NSE shares had been sold at ₹3,990 per share, implying an overall valuation of ₹17,995 crores. It was claimed when measured against NSE's present unlisted-market valuation of approximately ₹5,00,000 crores, the divestment occasioned a notional loss of approximately ₹12,121.13 crores to IFCI and, consequently, to the public exchequer.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia in its order noted that the petitioner had also filed a PIL pending in the Bombay High Court on overlapping issues but had not suppressed this information in the present petition.
Noting that the PIL before the Bombay High Court was filed prior to the PIL before the Delhi High Court the court said the petitioner having failed to disclose the pendency of the Bombay Writ and having made an averment to the contrary on oath, cannot be said to have approached this Court with the candour expected of a litigant invoking PIL jurisdiction.
"Consequently, the present PIL is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone without consideration on merits at all," the court said.
Finding that the Bombay PIL was closely connected to the present plea the court said that in the Bombay Writ, the Petitioner has sought a direction to NSE to disclose, on affidavit, its promoter group, shareholders and ultimate beneficiaries, together with the relevant know-your-customer documents.
In the present PIL, the Petitioner had sought a a direction to SEBI and NSE to require DVI Fund, Soach Global and similarly placed entities to disclose their complete chain of ownership and control up to their ultimate beneficial owners.
"The reliefs sought in the two proceedings are, therefore, in substance, similar and pertain to the same shareholding in the same company. The Petitioner appears to have resorted to clever drafting in an attempt to camouflage the prayers in the present PIL to appear distinct from those sought in the Bombay Writ," the court said.
The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that Bombay Writ was unconnected with the present PIL and, consequently, no disclosure thereof was necessary noting that the grounds urged and the prayers sought in the Bombay Writ substantially traverse the subject matter raised in the present PIL.
"Upon considering the pendency of the Bombay Writ, its nondisclosure in the present proceedings, and the incorrect averment made on oath in Paragraph No. 41 of the present PIL, we are unable to accept that the present PIL has been instituted bona fide or in public interest. The Petitioner has, in our considered view, abused the process of law by instituting the present PIL on the basis of a stale news report of 2015, while suppressing the prior Bombay Writ concerning substantially the same issues as those raised herein.
In these circumstances, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to examine the merits of the allegations concerning IFCI's divestment of its shareholding in NSE. Having regard to the suppression of material facts, we are satisfied that the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and has indulged in forum shopping. In order to deter such conduct and to preserve the sanctity of proceedings instituted in public interest, we deem it just and proper to impose exemplary costs of ₹5,00,000/- upon the Petitioner, which shall be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks' Association within a period of two weeks from today"
The Petitioner sought preservation and production of the complete record; disclosure by DVI Fund (Mauritius) Ltd. (DVI Fund), Soach Global Opportunities Fund (Soach Global) and similarly placed entities of their ownership, ultimate beneficial ownership and source of funds; a restraint on their participation in NSE's proposed Offer for Sale or alienation of the impugned shareholding pending disclosure and inquiry.
He sought examination by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) of the transfers, transferees' fit and proper status and beneficial ownership and consideration of the Petitioner's complaint dated 05.06.2026 by the SEBI and CBI including, if warranted, an independent investigation by the CBI or any other competent agency.
The PIL was dismissed.
Case title: PARINAY SHARMA v/s UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
W.P.(C) 11957/2026
Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Senior Advocate with Ms. Yeshasvi Shrivastava, Advocate.
Counsel for respondents: Mr. Akash Vajpai, CGSC with Mr. Sarvesh Srivastava, GP and Mr. Priyanshu, Advocate for R-1 and R-2. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Baid, Mr. Mohit Kumar Bafna and Mr. Praneet Das, Advocates for R-3. Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Ms. Madhavi Khanna, Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, Mr. Harshit and Mr. Nimish Kumar, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Akhilesh, SPP along with Ms. Anchal Kashyap, Advocate for R-6.