K.S.Minhas vs Wrestling Federation Of India & ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 606 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                    Judgment Pronounced on: 02.02.2011

+           CS(OS) No. 143/2011

K.S.MINHAS                                      .....Plaintiff

                            - versus -

WRESTLING FEDERATION OF
INDIA & ANR.                                    .....Defendants

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff       : Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta, Adv.
For the Defendants:       Mr. Gurbaksh Singh with
                          Mr.Karan Singh, Adv. for D-1.
                          Mr. Pardeep Dewan with
                          Mr.Rajiv Samaiyar, Adv. for
                          D-2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                          No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                  No
   in Digest?

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. In this case, two written statements have been filed

on behalf of defendant No.1. The first is a joint written

statement on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed through

Shri Anupam Dhingra and Shri Rajiv Samaiyar, Advocates.

The other is the written statement handed over today in the

Court and filed through Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Advocate.

Obviously, the Court cannot consider two separate written

statements on behalf of defendant No.1. It appears that the

written statement filed by Shri Gurbaksh Singh, Advocate,

has been authorized by the General Secretary of defendant

No.1 whereas the written statement filed through Shri Rajiv

Samaiyar, Advocate, has been authorized by defendant No.2

who is its President. Primarily, it is for the Executive

Council of defendant No.1 to decide who will represent it in

this suit and what stand it has to take on behalf of

defendant No.1. Admittedly, the matter has not been placed

before the Executive Council of defendant No.1 to take a

decision in this regard. It is, therefore, directed that an

extraordinary meeting of the Executive Council of defendant

No.1 will be held on 7th February, 2010 at 5.00 PM at a

suitable place to be decided by defendant No.2 in

Jalandhar, Punjab where all the members of the Executive

Council are stated to have reached in connection with

Shaheed Bhagat Singh International Wrestling Tournament

scheduled to be held from 9th February, 2011 to 12th

February, 2011. All the parties present in the Court want

the meeting to be held at Jalandhar only. The president of

defendant No.1 will inform all the members of the Executive

Council through courier as well as by telegram and on

telephone about the date, time and venue of the meeting.

The Executive Council in that meeting will decide who is to

represent defendant No.1 in this suit and who is to be

engaged as its counsel for the purpose of defending this

suit. The decision of the Executive Council will be conveyed

to the Court on the next date of hearing.

2. List this matter again for hearing on 6 th July, 2011.

I.A. No.884/2011

3. This is an application seeking stay of the notice

dated 12th January, 2011 issued by defendant No.2,

proposing to hold special meeting of General Council of

Wrestling Federation of India on 5th February, 2011 at

Ghaziabad and for restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from

holding the proposed meeting. Another relief sought in the

application is to restrain defendant No.2 from discharging

any functions as President of defendant No.1 and interfering

in its functioning. Yet another interim relief sought by the

plaintiff is a direction to defendant No.1 to adopt guidelines

dated 1st May, 2010 issued by Government of India,

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports relating to tenure

restrictions. The plaintiff is also seeking a direction to

defendant No.2 to render all accounts relating to

expenditure made by him as President of defendant No.1.

Another interim relief sought by the plaintiff is stay of the

show cause notice dated 10th January, 2011 issued by

defendant No.2.

4. The main plea taken by the plaintiff is that since

defendant No.2, who was a member of the Delhi Amateur

Wrestling Association, was ousted from the membership of

that association in its meeting held on 5 th June, 2009, he

cannot continue as the President of defendant No.1. He has

further submitted that though defendant No.2 now claims to

be a representative of Gujarat State Wrestling Association,

his appointment as the representative of that association

came to be made later i.e. on 13th June, 2009.

5. There is absolutely no document on record that

defendant No.2 was ousted from the membership of Delhi

Amateur Wrestling Association in a meeting held on 5 th

June, 2009. On the other hand, defendant No.2 has placed

on record a certificate dated 27th January, 2011 issued by

the President and Secretary General of Delhi Amateur

Wrestling Association certifying that he is a founder member

of the association since 1991 and that he has continued to

be its member without any break and interruption.

6. Thus, prima facie, it appears that defendant No.2

never ceased to be a member of the Delhi Amateur Wrestling

Association.

7. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the

plaintiff that in the meeting of the Executive Council of

defendant No.1 held on 13th June, 2009, defendant No.2 did

not sign the minutes as a representative of the Delhi

Amateur Wrestling Association but signed as a

representative of Gujarat State Wrestling Association. He

has further submitted that under the Constitution of

defendant No.1, no person can hold membership of more

than one State unit. The case of defendant No.2 in this

regard is that he never became a member of the Gujarat

State Wrestling Association and was only nominated to

represent that association for the meeting held on 13 th

June, 2009.

8. Be that as it may, prima facie, there is no material

on record from which it may be inferred that defendant No.2

is no more a member of defendant No.1. Admittedly,

defendant no.2 was elected as the President of defendant

No.1 in the meeting of the General Council of defendant

No.1 held on 18th April, 2007 and the tenure of President

being four years, he continuous to be the President of

Defendant No.1.

9. Defendant No.1 has convened a special meeting of

General Council of defendant No.1 for 5th February, 2011

and the meeting is scheduled to be held at Ghaziabad. As

per the Constitution of defendant No.1, the special meeting

of the General Council is to be convened by its President.

Therefore, prima facie defendant No.2 was well within his

right in convening the special meeting of the General

Council, scheduled to be held at Ghaziabad on 5th February,

2011.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that item

No.2 of the agenda circulated for the meeting scheduled to

be held on 5th February, 2011 proposes amendment of the

Memorandum of Association of defendant No.1 and since

such an item can be put up to the General Council only by

the Secretary General of defendant No.1, this item cannot

be put up to the General Council by defendant No.2. I,

however, find no merit in this contention. Since the special

meeting of the General Council is to be convened by the

President, obviously, the agenda items to the General

Council also have to be put up by him only. The learned

counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to Clause

17 of the Memorandum which provides that any proposed

amendment to the Memorandum of Association of defendant

No.1 will be submitted to the Secretary General, who will

circulate it to all the members. This clause in my view

cannot be interpreted to mean that agenda item proposing

amendment of the Memorandum of Association is also to be

presented only by the Secretary General. The Memorandum

of the society provides that any amendment to the

Memorandum can be carried out only at a special meeting

of the General Council by two third majority. The power to

convene the special meeting of the General Council has

been given only to the President, under Article 12 of the

Memorandum. Thus, the agenda items including a proposal

for amendment of the Memorandum have to be put up to

the General Council only by the President. The provision

requiring submission of the proposed amendment to the

General Secretary is meant to ensure that all the members

of the society get copy of the proposed amendments before

they attend the meeting. Admittedly, this has already been

done by defendant No.2. Therefore, in my view, there is no

sufficient ground to restrain the defendant No.2 from

placing agenda item No.2 before the General Council.

11. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs,

I find no good ground to stay the meeting of the General

Council, scheduled to be held on 5th February, 2011 at

Ghaziabad. Other reliefs claimed in the application are not

interim in nature and cannot be granted at this stage. The

application is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear

that any decision taken by the General Council in its

meeting, scheduled to be held on 5th February, 2011, will be

subject to final decision of the suit.

12. One copy each of the order be given dasti to

learned counsel for both the parties under signatures of the

Court Master.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 02, 2011 VK