SALMAN KHURSHID Vs. DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal, challenging the rejection of his application for ad interim injunction, suspending operation of his expulsion from the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi (the first respondent, hereafter "the society"). The appellant (hereafter "the plaintiff" was President of the society for three terms, and was its life member, and had been associated with various committees including the high-level Dispute Resolution Committee comprising of three members, constituted to inquire into allegations of wrongdoing and theft of a crucial vote during the last elections to the post of the Chairman of the society.

(2.) The society has established 11 core schools by the name of Delhi Public School and runs over 190 "Franchise schools", across the country and overseas, in collaboration with various public, private sector undertakings and individual entrepreneurs. The Memorandum of Association of the society regulates administration of all its schools in it. The second respondent (i.e. the second defendant) is the current chairman of the society.

(3.) The facts are that the appellant along with Dr. Sharada Nayak visited the society's office in the capacity of a life member during the office hours. This resulted in a first information report (FIR bearing No. 421/2015) being registered on behalf of the society in the Amar Colony Police Station against Dr. Sharada Nayak for allegedly trespassing inside the Chairperson's office and declaring herself the Chairperson. In the July 2015 a colleague asked the plaintiff a practicing senior counsel to take up and advise in a civil case filed by Dr. Sharada Nayak against the society; the plaintiff agreed to the request. The plaintiff thereupon received a show cause notice dated 24.05.2015 by respondent society to explain the act of trespass. That letter further called for explanation why the plaintiff appeared as the counsel for Dr. Sharada Nayak. A termination notice was issued to the plaintiff, asking him to cease from membership of the society. The plaintiff, contending that the action was an expulsion, not justified in law, challenged it in the suit filed before this Court; he sought interim relief of stay of expulsion and further that no life member should be inducted in the resultant vacancy.