IMPORTANT POINT
Notice mentioning the agenda of meeting and an agenda for the meeting are imperative for a meeting to be valid.

Headnote:Practice and procedure – Meeting, agenda and notice – Notice mentioning the agenda imperative for a meeting to be valid – Similarly an agenda to be taken up in the meeting also imperative – Instantly the meeting conducted on 02.08.2014 not having any agenda – High Court rightly declaring the elections invalid and issuing directions for fresh election – Rule 7, Bar Council of India Rules. (Para 25, 26)
       AIR 1964 SC 477 – Referred
       AIR 1954 SC 215; AIR 1966 SCC 330; AIR 1981 SC 789; (2008) 3 SCC 363 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       Sri Sunil Gupta was elected representative of State Bar Council of MP in the Bar Council of India on 29.06.2014. On objection from a section of members of the State Bar Council election of Sri Sunil Gupta was cancelled and on 02.08.2014 Sri Pratap Mehta was elected in his place. Both persons represented to the Bar Council of India which ultimately held election of Sri Pratap Mehta valid.
       The High Court held both the elections to be invalid and directed fresh election.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

These appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 17.07.2018 of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal NO.365/2018 and other connected LPAs. Letters Patent Appeals were filed by the appellant aggrieved by common judgment dated 06.07.2018 of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition(C)No.2142 of 2016 (State Bar Council of M.P. vs. Bar Council of India & Ors.) and Writ Petition (C) No.2215 of 2016 (Sunil Gupta vs. Bar Council of India & Ors.). Learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 06.07.2018 disposed of the writ petitions with certain directions.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding these appeals are:

State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh held the elections for its constituent members in the month of May-June, 2014. After declaration of the result notice dated 09.06.2014 was issued for holding the first meeting of newly elected members on 29.06.2014. Agenda for the meeting to be held on 29.06.2014 was to conduct the elections for the various offices and the Committees of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh including the office of its representative member in the Bar Council of India. In these appeals we are concerned only with one Agenda item which is to the following effect:

"Part B

Serial No.1: Discussion, consideration and decision regarding the election of the representative member of the Bar Council for the Bar Council of India.”

3. Pursuant to notice dated 09.06.2014, a meeting was held on 29.06.2014, which was presided over by the Advocate General of the State of Madhya Pradesh and was attended by all the 25 members of the State Bar Council of M.P. In the meeting, one Shri Rameshwar Neekhra was elected as Chairman.

4. The case of the respondents, who were writ petitioners before the High Court was that in the said meeting, election for other office bearers including election for representative member of the State Bar Council to Bar Council of India was held in which Shri Sunil Gupta was unanimously elected. Shri Sunil Gupta, also started working as member representative in the Bar Council of India. On 29.06.2014, 9 members of the State Bar Council wrote a letter to its Secretary requesting him to organise a meeting for conducting elections to the various offices and Committees of the State Bar Council. It was further alleged in the letter that after the election of Chairman on 29.06.2014, the meeting has been adjourned and the members without any further notice to the members who had thereafter left the place of meeting, reconvened the meeting and elected Shri Sunil Gupta as representative of the Bar Council of India. A letter dated 13.07.2014 was also sent to the above effect by 13 members.

5. On 13.07.2014 another letter was sent to the Secretary by 13 members requesting to consider a no-confidence motion under Rule 122A of the State Bar Council of M.P. Rules against Shri Rameshwar Neekhra, the Chairman. Taking cognizance of the letters dated 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 sent by various members to the Secretary, notice dated 16.07.2014/19.07.2014 was issued to the members of State Bar Council informing them of a special meeting scheduled to be held on 02.08.2014 for deciding the issues brought forth in the said letters. The special meeting was convened on 02.08.2014. The proposed no-confidence motion against Chairman was withdrawn, Chairman relying on the various letters sent by the members declared all the elections held on 29.06.2014 except his own, as void. All the office bearers and members who were elected on 29.06.2014 submitted their resignations from their respective posts except Shri Sunil Gupta who refused to resign as representative to the Bar Council of India. On 02.08.2014, election of several officer bearers including representative to the Bar Council of India was conducted in which Shri Pratap Mehta was declared elected as representative of the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India.

6. Aggrieved by the Resolution dated 02.08.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 1112

IMPORTANT POINTNotice mentioning the agenda of meeting and an agenda for the meeting are imperative for a meeting to be valid.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
Notice mentioning the agenda of meeting and an agenda for the meeting are imperative for a meeting to be valid.