SHYAM T NICHANI Vs. BALIRAM C CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit, out of which the Notice of Motion before the Court arises, has been instituted by eighteen members of the National sports Club of India (NSCI), a Society registered under the Societies' registration Act, 1860. The First Defendant is the Chairman of the nsci, Mumbai. The Second Defendant was appointed as the principal Architect for a project involving the development and reconstruction of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Stadium. The Stadium had a velodrome and a central area which could be utilised for athletics. There was a seating capacity of about 40,000 persons. The suit is a derivative action instituted by the Plaintiffs for and on behalf of the Club. The cause of action for the suit is founded on an allegation that there were gross irregularities and illegalities in the award and execution of work for the construction and development of the new Sports Stadium Complex. According to the Plaintiffs: (i) The second Defendant who was not an Architect and had no architectural qualifications was appointed as the Principal Architect; (ii) The Third defendant, who is the daughter of the Second Defendant and was a college student at the material time, was to be paid 5% of the project cost; (iii) The initial budget of Rs. 40 crores, escalated to Rs. 125 crores; and (iv) Work which was to be carried out in 18 months has remained incomplete after three years and eight months. The plaintiffs seek a decree against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6, in favour of the Club, which is impleaded as Defendant No. 40, in the amount of Rs. 90 crores and a decree against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the amount of Rs. 11. 08 crores. Among the reliefs that have been sought is, the supercession of the Executive Committee and the mumbai Regional Committee of the Club; the appointment of an administrator; a declaration that the work of redevelopment of the stadium is illegal; a declaration in regard to the illegality of the appointment of the Second Defendant as Principal Architect and of the Fifth and Sixth Defendants as contractors for redevelopment. Consequential injunctive reliefs have been sought.

(2.) IN Notice of Motion 3652 of 2007, the Plaintiffs seek the appointment of an interim Administrator; the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the project for the reconstruction of the stadium; for the conduct of an investigation by a Committee of experts and injunctive reliefs against Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 39 from being concerned with the work of reconstruction and redevelopment. On 1st November 2007, an ad-interim order was passed by a Learned Single Judge, directing that the Motion should be peremptorily taken up for hearing and that no payments shall be made to Defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6, in the meantime. The ad-interim order has since been extended.

(3.) THE submissions which have been urged before the Court on behalf of the Plaintiffs would require elaboration. The heads under which the submissions fall and the contentions thereunder are summarised hereinafter: