9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the letter issued by defendant No. 1 2. Application for ad interim injunction 3. Arbitration clause in the memorandum and articles of association 4. Suspension of a member under article 99E 5. Alleged violation of bye-laws 350(xii) Analysis: 1. The case involves a suit filed by a partnership firm against the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. challenging the legality of a letter issued by the defendant. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the letter was illegal, null, void, and vitiated by malice, along with a permanent injunction against the defendant. An application for an ad interim injunction was filed under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to restrain the defendant from taking any action based on the letter until the suit's disposal. 2. Despite service being reported, some defendants did not appear on the specified date, leading to a request for an adjournment by the counsel for other defendants. The dispute arose between the plaintiff and defendant No. 4, both being members of the defendant No. 1, governed by an arbitration clause in the association's memorandum and articles. The plaintiff contested the amount claimed by defendant No. 4, leading to a special audit and the issuance of the contentious letter, threatening suspension and demanding payment within seven days. 3. The court analyzed the relevant provisions, including article 127 and article 99E of the association's rules. It emphasized the importance of arbitration in resolving disputes and highlighted the need for a factual determination of the claimed amount before disciplinary action could be taken. However, the court noted a potential violation of bye-laws 350(xii) regarding the failure to report transactions, which could justify action under article 99E. 4. The court ruled that no action should be taken under article 99E or bye-laws 350(xii) concerning the claimed amount until further orders. However, it declined to stay action based on the alleged violation of bye-laws 350(xii, indicating a nuanced approach to the different aspects of the dispute. The judgment emphasized that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits, ensuring impartiality in the ongoing legal proceedings.
|
