Back
High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH J.
Ashok Kumar & Another
Versus
SBI Officers Association (Delhi Circle) The General Secretary & Another
Case No : O.M.P. Nos. 163 of 2013 & 500 of 2012
Decided on : 26-04-2013.
The Court held that the disputes relating to election and expulsion are separately prescribed under the Bye laws and as such cannot be included in the general terms of Bye law 27. The Court further held that the petitioners are bound by the Bye laws of the respondent which disentitles them from claiming interim relief. By the said reason, the application under Section 9 of the Act by the petitioners also becomes premature.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are members of the State Bank of India Officers Association (Delhi Circle), filed two petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking interim measures to restrain the respondents from holding a meeting of the executive committee and to launch disciplinary action against them. The petitioners alleged that the respondent association is not functioning democratically and that the respondents are misusing their powers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the disputes relating to election and expulsion are separately prescribed under the Bye laws and as such cannot be included in the general terms of Bye law 27. The Court further held that the petitioners are bound by the Bye laws of the respondent which disentitles them from claiming interim relief. By the said reason, the application under Section 9 of the Act by the petitioners also becomes premature.
Issues: 1. Whether the disputes relating to election and expulsion are covered within the ambit of the arbitration clause as contained in Bye law 27 of the Bye laws of the respondent No. 1? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim relief under Section 9 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the disputes relating to election and expulsion are separately prescribed under the Bye laws and as such cannot be included in the general terms of Bye law 27. The Court relied on the principle of harmonious construction to hold that the specific provisions of the Bye laws relating to election and expulsion prevail over the general provision of Bye law 27. 2. The Court held that the petitioners are bound by the Bye laws of the respondent which disentitles them from claiming interim relief. The Court relied on the principle of equity that a person who seeks equity must do equity and held that the petitioners, who are in breach of the Bye laws, cannot insist on the enforcement of the same.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed both the petitions filed by the petitioners.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. By this order, I shall dispose of OMP No.500/2012 and OMP No.163/2013 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking interim measures as contained in the prayer clauses of the respective petitions. Brief factual matrix of the matter leading up to filing of the present petitions can be enunciated as under:
a) The petitioner No. 1 is stated to be a Vice president of the State Bank of India Officers Association (Delhi Circle)/respondent association. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the regular member of the association and has been office bearer since the year 2000. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner No. 1 was elected to the post of Vice President of the Module committee being commercial network known as Mid Corporate Group. It is stated in the petition that in the last election in the year 2009, the petitioner No. 1 secured 5074 votes in his favour. Likewise, it has been stated in the petition that the petitioner No. 2 is currently the Deputy General Secretary of the Respondent Association and has been involved in the association since the year 2003.
b) The petitioners in OMP No.500/2012 have narrated several instances, from where it could be said as per them that the respondent association is not functioning democratically. It has been stated in the petition that the respondents attempt to launch a disciplinary action against the petitioners is motivated one in as much as the respondent No. 2, who is the General Secretary of the respondent No. 1 association is using his closeness to the executive committee in order to fulfil his vested interests and also arbitrarily trying to throw the petitioners out from the association by launching the disciplinary proceedings against them in response to the petitioners protest against the mismanagements and misdeeds of the respondent No. 2. It has been stated in the petition that when the petitioners raised their voice over the anti democratic activities of the respondent No. 2 at various occasions, they were served with the show cause notices dated 11th May, 2012.
c) It is further stated in the petition that executed committee meeting which was scheduled on 25.5.2012 with an agenda to launch a disciplinary action against the petitioners should not to be allowed to be proceeded by this court by issuing interim orders of this court. It has been urged in the petition that the executive committee comprises of merely co-opted members who are nominated by the respondent No. 2. It is contended in the petition if the meeting dated 25.5.2012 would be allowed to proceed further, the petitioners verily believe that they would be expelled. Therefore, the petitioners have filed present petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking the interim stay of the meeting dated 25.5.2012 and actions thereupon against the petitioners pending the invocation of the arbitration clause.
d) In order to demonstrate the activities of mismanagement, the petitioners have mentioned that the respondent No. 2 is engaged into several malpractices and misappropriation of the funds of the respondent No. 1 association. It is stated that CBI, Anti corruption Branch, Delhi has lodged a case of disproportionate assets against the respondent No. 2. It is further stated that CVC has also found ample material against the respondent No. 2 and requested to the concerned person to further request the management for the transfer of the respondent No.2.
e) In addition to the mismanagement, it has been contended by the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 has misused the Bye laws of the respondent No. 1 especially Bye law 67 in order to serve his personal goals. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 has used Bye law 67 in order to modify the composition of the executive committee. By doing this, the petitioners contend that the respondent No. 2 is depriving the elected members of t
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
