10 July 2023 8:54 AM GMT
While refusing to entertain his writ petition, the Delhi High Court on Monday said the Secretary of Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) can approach the National Company Law Tribunal to challenge a notice issued by the cricket governing body’s Apex Council for convening the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting to ratify the resolution appointing Justice (Retd.) M M Kumar as the...
While refusing to entertain his writ petition, the Delhi High Court on Monday said the Secretary of Delhi & District Cricket Association (DDCA) can approach the National Company Law Tribunal to challenge a notice issued by the cricket governing body’s Apex Council for convening the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting to ratify the resolution appointing Justice (Retd.) M M Kumar as the Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer.
Justice Kumar is a former Chief Justice Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of the plea moved by DDCA’s Secretary, Siddharth Sahib Singh, and granted him the liberty to approach NCLT for challenging the notice which was issued on June 10.
The notice was regarding convening of the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (EGM) of DDCA’s members on July 05. Former Supreme Court judge, Justice Indu Malhotra had resigned from the post of Ombudsman on March 31. Thereafter, it was decided that Justice Kumar will be given the post.
Justice Prasad observed that Singh failed to make out a case for the court to entertain the petition, and an equally efficacious alternative remedy or forum being NCLT is available to him.
“This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the NCLT is situated in Delhi and it was always open for the Petitioner to approach the NCLT which is the forum under the Companies Act to address the grievances which are raised by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition. The present case also does not fall within the exceptions that have been laid down by the Apex Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra) which would compel this Court to entertain the present Writ Petition even in the presence of an equally efficacious alternative remedy to the Petitioner,” the court said.
It added that if the appointment of Ombudsman was contrary to the laws laid down in the Articles of Association of DDCA, it is always open for NCLT to stay the effect of the resolution for appointment and reverse any order passed by the Ombudsman or any action taken if it is not in the interest of the governing body.
“The Petitioner, therefore, ought to have approached the NCLT and if the NCLT would have refused to waive off the stipulated requirement of support of one-fifth members of the company then it was always open for the Petitioner to approach this Court by contending that no equally efficacious alternative remedy is left to him,” the court said.
Justice Prasad also observed that it cannot be said that an irreversible damage would be caused to DDCA, or that it will be subjected to an irreparable loss needing urgent restraint orders, in case the court does not exercise its writ jurisdiction.
“This Court is, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition at this stage and grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the NCLT for the redressal of its grievances. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the case. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of,” the court said.
Title: SIDDHARTH SAHIB SINGH v. APEX COUNCIL OF DDCA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 573
Click Here To Read Order