Yes Bank’s HC plea is forum shopping, alleges Dish TV

“The petitioner (Yes Bank) cannot resort to ‘forum shopping’ in order to hear matters that are pending before courts… It is to note that a trivial defect in the listing of a matter cannot grieve the petitioner to the extent that it can invoke the powers of the high court to get a favourable decision,” Dish TV said in its reply to the petition filed by the lender. Mint has reviewed a copy of the reply.

In a writ petition filed before the Bombay high court on 19 September, Yes Bank sought the court’s intervention in directing the Mumbai National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to pass appropriate orders in an expeditious and time-bound manner.

Forum shopping refers to the practice of choosing the court or jurisdiction that has the most favourable rules or laws for the position being advocated. A party can forum shop when more than one court has jurisdiction over the dispute, choosing the court that gives it an advantage over the opposing party.

Email queries sent to Yes Bank and Dish TV were not answered immediately.

Yes Bank, the largest shareholder of Dish TV with a 24.78% stake, requisitioned Dish TV to hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). Alleging corporate misgovernance, Yes Bank first sought a complete reconstitution of Dish TV’s board and the induction of seven directors on 5 September last year.

Dish TV denied any wrongdoing. It did not convene an EGM, prompting Yes Bank to approach NCLT in November 2021. It has been close to a year that the bank has been unable to exercise its statutory right to convene the EGM.

In November last year, NCLT agreed to hear the matter but did not pass a final verdict. Aggrieved, Yes Bank then knocked on the doors of the high court.

Primarily, the satellite provider pointed out that though Dish TV is a necessary party to the proceedings before the NCLT, it is not a necessary party in the writ petition filed by Yes Bank, as the relief sought by the bank was against NCLT and not the company.

In its affidavit, Dish stated a court order that directs a government official to carry out a certain act can only be issued against a state or a public body.