ASHOK ARORA Vs. SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. 5151/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

(2.) By way of this application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC the plaintiff seeks an interim injunction staying the operation of the resolution dated 8th May, 2020 of the Executive Committee of defendant No.1/SCBA in terms whereof the plaintiff was suspended from functioning as Secretary of the defendant No.1.

(3.) Plaintiff who appears in person contends that in terms of Rule-35 of the Supreme Court Bar Association Rules (in short "the Rules"), only the General Body of the defendant No.1 Association is competent to suspend or terminate the membership of a member of the defendant No.1 Association and thus the decision of the Executive Committee of the defendant No.1 Association suspending the plaintiff from the post of Secretary of the defendant No.1 Association is illegal and non-est. Further Rule-14 gives power to the President of the Association and in his absence the Vice President to preside over all the meetings and if any question arises with respect to any matter, not provided for in the Rules or in the by-laws made by the Executive Committee, such questions shall subject to provisions of these Rules, be decided by the President whose decision shall be binding unless the General Body of the members in a subsequent meeting otherwise decides. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the action of Executive Committee of the SCBA falls under Rule-35, Rule 14 has no application to the facts of the case. The petitioner also challenges the Coram of the Executive Committee which passed the impugned resolution on the ground that most of the members of the said meeting being interested parties, and the neutral members in the meeting dated 8th May, 2020 being less than five, their decision cannot be binding. Hence the decision of the Executive Committee of SCBA dated 8th May, 2020 is non-est in law. However, after some arguments, the plaintiff confines his arguments to the applicability of Rule-35 and states that the allegations and counter allegations between the parties cannot be gone into at this stage in this application seeking interim injunction. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as Khwaja Nazir Ahmed vs. King Emperor, 1936 AIR(PC) 253 and S.P.Chengalvarya Naidu vs. Jagannath & Ors., 1994 1 SCC 1