SURESH ARORA Vs. DRT BAR ASSOCIATION DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of an application made under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for ad interim injunction against the defendants restraining them to conduct the elections.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this application are that elections of Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association have been announced and are scheduled to take place on 2nd May, 2008 in terms of election notice allegedly issued by Election Officer Mr. Bal Mukund on behalf of election Committee on 10th April, 2008. Plaintiffs have filed this suit stating that the elections being held are contrary to rules, regulations and bye laws of the Association and are being held arbitrarily by some unauthorized persons. It is stated that the Executive Committee and office bearers of DRT Bar Association were elected in December, 2002 for a period of two years. The next elections were to be held in December, 2004 The election process was not initiated by the office bearers of the Executive Committee elected in the year 2002 on expiry of their term, despite request made by several members. Members of Executive committee unauthorizedly continued to hold their posts and kept on postponing the elections. Ultimately on 11th March 2008, Defendant No. 2, who was President of the Association, elected in 2002 put a notice that membership of Defendant no. 1 was being opened and shall remain open upto 28th March, 2008. It is stated that membership of the Association was kept closed from December, 2002 till march 2008 and during that period membership forms were not provided to advocates practicing in Debt Recovery Tribunal. Suddenly, this membership was opened only to self-serve Defendant No. 2 and others and opening of membership only for two weeks was contrary to the rules. After opening of membership in march 2008, while the earlier members were around 500 in number now more than 500 more members have been inducted into the Association just in a period of four weeks. The cost of the membership application form was also reduced and the recovery of arrears of membership from the existing members was also deferred and they were all allowed to participate in the elections contrary to rules of the Association. It is also submitted that the complete particulars of the new members were not being supplied to the other contestants. Entire records of the Association lying in DRT Bar room has been removed by Defendant no. 2 at his office at B-3, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi. Even the rules, regulations and bye laws of the Association were in exclusive control of defendant No. 2. The membership of Bar Association in bulk was sponsored by some of the candidates so as to have benefit in the elections. It is further submitted that except one or two meetings of the Executive Committee, which took place soon after the earlier elections in 2002. No further meeting had taken place of the Executive Body. The Minutes Book Register being maintained by defendant No. 1 will substantiate this contention. There are several other allegations made in the plaint and application.

(3.) NOTICE of the application was served upon Defendants No. 2 and other Defendants. Defendants were asked to place on record the rules, regulations and bye laws of the DRT Bar Association. Defendant No. 2 provided the rules and regulations of the Bar Association.