TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... third party. In these circumstances, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and we find justification for such dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches in the light of facts stated above. Hence, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of other contentions raised, that too at this length of time. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 41 OF 1994 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2001 - S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ. Sudhir Chandra, E.C. Agarwala, Rishi Agarwala, Mahesh Agarwal, Sumeet Lall for the Appellant. Dushyant A. Dave, Yashank P. Adhyaru, Pratap Venugopal, K.J. John, Ms. J.S. Wad Ashish Wad, Ms. Niharika Bhal for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Patil, J. - In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ground of delay and laches by the impugned judgment and order. 3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the order declaring the appellants as defaulters is unsustainable as it was passed in violation of rules of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity was given to explain the show cause; no reasons are recorded in the order and that the report of the Enquiry Committee was not given. According to him, the decision of the Respondent No. 1 declaring the appellants as defaulters was arbitrary and that there was malice on the part of the Executive Director, the Respondent No. 1. It was further urged that in a case like this where the impugned action of the Respondent No. 1 was void, the High Court was not justifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed; so also the appeal. The appellants were in financial difficulties sometime prior to December, 1986 and, hence, they suspended their business as per their letters dated 23-12-1986 and 26-12-1986; since certain complaints were received against the appellants, a committee of three members was formed by the Governing Board of the Respondent No. 1 to investigate into the affairs of the appellants and intimation thereof was given to them by letter dated 26-2-1987. The said committee examined the books of account and other documents of the appellants which were found incomplete and not in proper form; the committee obtained oral clarification and explanation from them and thereafter submitted its report dated 19-3-1987. Considering the repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Governing Board of the Respondent No. 1 stating that they were victims of circumstances as their clients who had to pay to the tune of Rs. 1,25,00,000 in respect of transactions in shares effected by them through the Stock Exchange have not paid the said amount. In para 4 of the said letter, it is stated thus : "We are highly, obliged to the authorities of the Exchange for the cooperation extended to us in the circumstances in which we are put for no fault of ours and more particularly to the Executive Director and the President of our Exchange." It may be noted that in the very first para of this letter, the appellants have acknowledged the receipt of the notice dated 25-3-1987 intimating that they had been declared as defaulters. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effective steps either to get the stay of the operation of the notice dated 25-3-1987 declaring them as defaulters and similarly they did not take steps to pursue to get any interim order to stop sale of membership. Merely because the appellants went on making representations to the authorities who could not grant them any relief or that they were not sure about the legal position as to the maintainability of writ petition against the Respondent No. 1, in our view, are not the grounds to justify the delay and laches on the part of the appellants in filing the writ petition. Nothing prevented them to take such course as was available to them in law without any loss of time. The ground of malice urged against the executive director of the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants themselves and the report of the Enquiry Committee is no different. No particular provision was shown to us by which it could be said that the decision taken by the Respondent No. 1 declaring them as defaulters was one taken contrary to law or without complying with any mandatory requirements prima facie. Be that as it may, that even after coming to know of the fact that they were declared as defaulters at least as early as on 31-3-1987, they filed writ petition only on 26-10-1990. The High Court having referred to the relevant bye-laws and rules noticed that after the appellants were declared as defaulters, their membership vested in the Respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 had every right to sell the same. The High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
