Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 24/2018

[2018] NZSC 48

BETWEEN
RAJENDRA PRASAD

Applicant

AND

INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED

First Respondent

ARIN LAL
Second Respondent

VENKAT RAM
Third Respondent

MAHESH PARERA

Fourth Respondent

SC 25/2018

BETWEEN

RAJENDRA PRASAD

Applicant

AND

INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED

Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, William Young and Ellen France JJ

Counsel:

Applicant in person

B Parshotam for Respondents

Judgment:

21 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications for recall and for an extension of time for leave to appeal are dismissed.

BThere is no award of costs.

RAJENDRA PRASAD v INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED [2018] NZSC 48 [21 May 2018]

REASONS

[1] The applicant has filed various documents in relation to copyright proceedings in which he has been involved and with respect to an order adjudicating him bankrupt. The Registrar initially declined to accept the documents for filing and advised the applicant the Court had no jurisdiction to determine the matter. The applicant requested that this decision be reconsidered and, in light of that request, the Registrar accepted the application for leave for filing and referred it to a panel of Judges for decision.

[2] The documents filed by the applicant refer to a number of earlier decisions of this Court and other Courts dealing with both the copyright and bankruptcy proceedings. The documentation is confused and repetitive. In an endeavour to make sense of this material we treated what has been filed as comprising two applications:

(a)an application for recall of this Court’s earlier decision1 declining leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal striking out Mr Prasad’s copyright proceedings as an abuse of process;2 and

(b)an application for leave to appeal out of time from the judgment of Associate Judge Faire ordering Mr Prasad to be adjudicated bankrupt.3

[3] In terms of the application for recall this Court, in a judgment delivered some time ago, declined an application for recall of the decision to decline leave on the basis it was without merit.4 Nothing raised by the applicant provides any basis for recall. The further application for recall is accordingly dismissed.

[4] In relation to the second application, there is no explanation for the lengthy delay. Further, as this Court said in declining leave to appeal in relation to another proceeding challenging the process of the insolvency proceedings, these issues have

1      Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd [2010] NZSC 60.
2      Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd v Prasad [2010] NZCA 111.
3      Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd v Prasad HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-3333, 11 November 2010.
4      Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZSC 97. The fact William Young J was on the panel which dealt with the earlier application is not a basis for recusal.

been raised and determined in various proceedings.5 The issues are confined to the specific facts and raise no questions of public or general importance. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to this Court.6 In these circumstances, the application for an extension of time is dismissed.

[5]As the respondents filed no submissions we make no order for costs.

[6] The Registrar is directed not to accept any further documents in relation to these applications from Mr Prasad.

Solicitors:
Parshotam Lawyers, Auckland for Respondents

5 Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZSC 93 at [5]; and see Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd [2014] NZSC 78.
6 Supreme Court Act 2003, s 14; Senior Courts Act 2016, s 75.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rajendra Prasad filed documents in relation to copyright proceedings against Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited and an order adjudicating him bankrupt. The Registrar declined to accept the documents for filing and the applicant requested reconsideration. The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered two applications: a recall of the Court’s earlier decision declining leave to appeal from a Court of Appeal decision striking out Mr Prasad’s copyright proceedings as an abuse of process, and an application for leave to appeal out of time from a judgment ordering Mr Prasad to be adjudicated bankrupt. The Court dismissed both applications. The recall application was dismissed because there was no basis for recall. The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because there was no explanation for the delay and the issues raised had already been determined in various proceedings. The Court also directed the Registrar not to accept any further documents from Mr Prasad in relation to these applications.

The Court held that the application for recall was without merit, and the applicant had not provided any basis for reconsideration. The Court noted that the issues had been raised and determined in various proceedings and raised no questions of public or general importance. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Court. The Court concluded that the application for leave to appeal out of time was also without merit, and the applicant had not provided any explanation for the delay. The Court held that the issues had been raised and determined in various proceedings and raised no questions of public or general importance. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Court.

The Court dismissed both applications and directed the Registrar not to accept any further documents from Mr Prasad in relation to these applications. The Court held that the applicant had not provided any basis for reconsideration of the recall application, and the issues had been raised and determined in various proceedings. The Court also held that the applicant had not provided any explanation for the delay in the application for leave to appeal out of time, and the issues had been raised and determined in various proceedings. The Court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Court in either application.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed both the recall and leave to appeal applications, and directed the Registrar not to accept any further documents from Mr Prasad in relation to these applications. The Court held that the recall application was without merit and the applicant had not provided any basis for reconsideration. The Court also held that the application for leave to appeal out of time was without merit, and the applicant had not provided any explanation for the delay. The Court concluded that the issues had been raised and determined in various proceedings, and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Court in either application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established