2014 Supreme(Del) 606

High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
UTKARSH
Versus
Delhi Bar Association
I.A. No. 20968 of 2013, I.A. No.414/2014 & I.A. No.415/2014 in CS(OS) 2625/2013
Decided On : 25-02-2014

The dispute raised by the member whereby the committee is alerted for its failure to observe the duties casted upon the same by appointment of the election commission is the dispute vis-à-vis a member and committee under the constitution seeking insistence of the compliance of the rules and bye laws of the constitution as against the dispute between a member and association as a whole.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - Clause 35 of the constitution of Delhi Bar Association - Arbitration clause - Disputes between members and members between member(s) and association shall be resolved by means of arbitration by the Arbitrator appointed by the Committee the decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the contending parties. No suit or legal proceedings shall be maintainable inter-se the members and member(s) and association in any court of law. - Held, the dispute raised by the member whereby the committee is alerted for its failure to observe the duties casted upon the same by appointment of the election commission is the dispute vis-à-vis a member and committee under the constitution seeking insistence of the compliance of the rules and bye laws of the constitution as against the dispute between a member and association as a whole. Thus, by the very wordings of clause 35 which is the arbitration clause contained in the constitution, Prima facie, it appears that the dispute raised by the member seeking compliance of the mandatory rules and regulations by the committee and bringing to the notice the duty of the committee to appoint election commission and to take steps further is not the dispute between a member and association but the dispute between a member and committee and the same is prima facie not covered by the same.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a practicing advocate, filed a suit against the defendant, Delhi Bar Association, for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was governed by a constitution which was amended from time to time and that the last amendment was carried out by the general body of the defendant in its meeting on 12th January, 2010. As per the constitution of the defendant, the defendant had to be governed by a committee elected by the members of the defendant in the elections held every two years. As per clause 13 of the constitution of the defendant, the said elections had to be held by 25th of January every two years. Accordingly, since the last elections were held in January, 2010, the term of the existing committee elected in 2012 had come to an end and the elections ought to have been mandatorily held before 25th January, 2014. The constitution of defendant further stipulated certain dates on which certain steps had to be taken so as to ensure that the elections were held before the 25th January of the election year. The plaintiff stated that none of the clauses pertaining to the holding of elections on time had been complied with by the defendant and no valid justification or cogent reason was being put forward by the existing committee of the defendant for not complying with the said provisions/clauses of the constitution as amended on 12th January, 2010. The plaintiff approached the members of the existing committee who assured him that the schedule of the elections in the constitution would be adhered to. However, after having waited for the election commission and election tribunal to be formed and election schedule to be declared on 11th December, 2013 and 15th December, 2013 respectively, the plaintiff vide a notice dated 16th December, 2013 requested the Defendant to initiate the process for the said elections to be held in January 2014. The defendant vide a notice dated 17th December, 2013 informed that the date for clearing the arrears of subscription was fixed as 10th January, 2014, which date according to the plaintiff, in terms of Clause 15(ii) of the constitution could not be extended at all. However, the said notice dated 17th December, 2013 did not contain any information with regard to the formation of the Election Commission and Election Tribunals. The plaintiff stated that as on the date of filing the suit, that the defendant had not commenced the election process, completely disregarding the various mandatory provisions of the constitution of the defendant. Further the Election Commission and the Tribunal are yet to be formed, election date is yet to be decided and the mandatory 3 weeks period between the date of announcement of election and the election date has to be adhered to. Apprehending that it was highly unlikely that the elections could be held on or before 25th January, 2014, the plaintiff filed the present suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction for the defendant to adhere to the election schedule as stipulated in the constitution, being mandatory. The defendant filed two applications, first being I.A. No. 414/2014 under Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and second being I.A. No. 415/2014 under Section 8 of the Act. The defendant stated that by virtue of provision 35 of the constitution/by-laws of the defendant, there exists an arbitration clause for resolving the disputes between the members and the defendant. Accordingly, no suit or other legal proceedings in this respect are maintainable in the court of law.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the dispute raised by the member whereby the committee is alerted for its failure to observe the duties casted upon the same by appointment of the election commission is the dispute vis-à-vis a member and committee under the constitution seeking insistence of the compliance of the rules and bye laws of the constitution as against the dispute between a member and association as a whole. Thus, by the very wordings of clause 35 which is the arbitration clause contained in the constitution, Prima facie, it appears that the dispute raised by the member seeking compliance of the mandatory rules and regulations by the committee and bringing to the notice the duty of the committee to appoint election commission and to take steps further is not the dispute between a member and association but the dispute between a member and committee and the same is prima facie not covered by the same.

Issues: Whether the dispute raised by the member whereby the committee is alerted for its failure to observe the duties casted upon the same by appointment of the election commission is the dispute vis-à-vis a member and committee under the constitution seeking insistence of the compliance of the rules and bye laws of the constitution as against the dispute between a member and association as a whole.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute raised by the member whereby the committee is alerted for its failure to observe the duties casted upon the same by appointment of the election commission is the dispute vis-à-vis a member and committee under the constitution seeking insistence of the compliance of the rules and bye laws of the constitution as against the dispute between a member and association as a whole. Thus, by the very wordings of clause 35 which is the arbitration clause contained in the constitution, Prima facie, it appears that the dispute raised by the member seeking compliance of the mandatory rules and regulations by the committee and bringing to the notice the duty of the committee to appoint election commission and to take steps further is not the dispute between a member and association but the dispute between a member and committee and the same is prima facie not covered by the same.

Final Decision: The court passed interim directions to the defendant association so that the executive committee governing the defendant should immediately adhere to the rules of constitution and start the election process by forming election commission and proceeding in the manner provided in the rules of the constitution in the time bound manner. Accordingly, the defendants through their executive committee are directed to take the necessary steps towards holding the election as per the mechanism provided under clause 14 and 15 of the constitution of the defendant forthwith.