HC vacates stay on selection proceedings to appoint MD

The Madras High Court has vacated stay on selection proceedings to appoint a managing director for Repco Home Finance Company Limited and imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on a person who challenged the notification raising the age of entry.
A Malaisamy, the petitioner, had not revealed the fact that he was a defaulter to the tune of Rs 6.5 crore with the bank and that he had filed a similar petition earlier and withdrawn it too.
Justice M Sathyanarayanan, rapping the man, said "it is a well-settled position of law that a party who seeks equity of this court must come with clean hands."

"However, the petitioner is guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts..In the considered opinion of the court, he has abused the process of this court and obtained an interim order and thereby stalled the selection process, which has resulted in grave prejudice to the affairs of the company."
Malaisamy had submitted that in its advertisement on February 17, 2015, the company had fixed the age of entry as 55 to 62 years.
Describing it as being contrary to the norms for recruitment to public sector undertakings, where general age of superannuation is 60 years, he said it being a subsidiary company of REPCO Bank and the government of India being the single largest shareholder, it should strictly follow the service rules applicable to PSUs.

The revision in age of entry was only to accommodate someone very close to hierarchy, he alleged. The court had put on hold the selection process as well.

Justice Sathyanarayanan said prescription of age limit was in consonance with Sections 196(3) and (4) of Companies Act, 2013 as per which a managing director's retirement age is 70 years.
The judge then dismissed the petition with cost of Rs 25,000 payable by him to the company within four weeks, failing which, the company can initiate appropriate legal proceedings.
Malaisamy had not disclosed the fact that he had filed a similar petition earlier, the judge said.

"This court is of the view that the order withdrawing the earlier writ petition on October 30, 2014, is having a bearing on the merits of the case for the reason that he has taken the very same stand and failed to get adjudication on merits. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of willful suppression of material facts.