9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by regulating the business of dealing therein. Certain other incidental provisions prescribing prohibitions, etc., were also made therein. Section 4 provided for the necessity to secure recognition for transacting business in securities. In pursuance thereof, the Delhi Stock Exchange secured recognition from the Central Government. With the passage of time the volume of work increased and the total number of members who could transact business in securities in the Delhi Stock Exchange being limited, certain difficulties were experienced in the matter of servicing the investors. On the one hand, there was the problem of servicing the investors with the number of members being small; there was also considerable difficulty experienced on account of the paucity of accommodation. Correspondence ensured between the Delhi Stock Exchange and the Central Government in this connection to find ways and means to improve the working of the Delhi Stock Exchange with a view to providing improved services to the investors. Ultimately, on 5-2-1987, the Government of India, while replying to the letter of the Delhi Stock Exchange dated 15-1-1987, conveyed its approval to the proposal for increasin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge in the Expert Commit- tee. The High Court rejected the conventions urged in support of the writ petition and dismissed the same by its judgment dated 18-4-1990* . It is this decision of the High Court which has given rise to Civil Appeal No. 4712 of 1990. 3. Civil Appeal No. 4711 of 1990 arises out of an order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which rejected Writ Petition No. 1357 of 1990, filed by Om Prakash Poplai on 7-5-1990. By that writ petition the petitioner had questioned his non-selection by the Expert Committee. The High Court noticed that the communication informing the petitioner of his non-selection (but it appears that he was placed on the waiting-list) was conveyed to him in July 1988 whereas, he had preferred the writ petition on 30-4-1990. The High Court also did not find any merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same in limine. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by special leave. His contention before the High Court and before us was that he was a double Graduate, BA., LL.B., with a post-Graduate qualification. LL.M. in Commercial Laws from Utkal University. He had worked as a member of the Punjab Stock Exchange, Lahore, from 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tock exchange since 1965-66 and, therefore, he was not abreast of the current developments in the field of finance and capital issues. It was, further, pointed out that the percentage of marks reserved for the Interview was only 20 and, therefore, it was not right to contend that the decision of the Expert Committee was vitiated as being arbitrary and against the principles relevant to article 14 of the Constitution. Reference was made to the case of one Smt. Nirmala Kumari Jain who was selected as a member of the stock exchange. It was contended that this selection was in total violation of norms, standard of selection and betrayed nepotism and favouritism. The position, insofar as she is concerned, was clarified by her in para- graph 13 of her counter-affidavit by pointing out that her husband, late Gian Chand Jain, was admitted to the membership of the stock exchange on 24-4-1990, as intimated by the telegram of 30-4-1990, and a share certificate was issued in the joint names of her husband and herself dated 24-4-1990. She being the joint shareholder along with her husband was entitled to be registered as a shareholder by virtue of instruction No. 3 on the application form and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the challenge on correct principles. 6. Insofar as the challenge relating to the personnel of the Expert Selection Committee was concerned, the High Court points out that under the memorandum and articles of association, the selection of members is purely by members of the board of directors. The validity of that provision was not put to question. Consequently, the High Court found it difficult to appreciate how the constitution of the Expert Selection Committee could be said to be arbitrary when its members are from amongst the directors of the board of the stock exchange. We also fail to appreciate how the constitution of the Expert Committee can be said to be arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution; in fact there is no basis on which a foundation could be laid for the challenge. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the High Court in this behalf. 7. It is significant to note that the selection of members by the Expert Committee had to be done on the basis of objective criteria taking into consideration experience, professional qualifications and similar related factors. In the present cases, we find that a certain percentage of marks was allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard to current developments in the field of capital issues, bonus issues, shareholder service and the like. It must not be forgotten that the court's role in such matters is limited and it does not function as an appellate authority over the selection done by an expert body unless it is shown by cogent and convincing evidence that the selection was biased, capricious, whimsical or arbitrary. General allega- tions of the type made cannot, in our opinion, nullify the selection process unless concrete facts are established to show that the members of the Expert Committee had at the behest of Shri Bansal favoured the char- tered accountants. Similarly, it must be shown that the members of the Expert Committee were biased against the petitioner/appellant; how- ever, none could be pointed out by counsel. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the contention of the petitioner-appellant in this behalf. Insofar as Smt. Nirmala's selection is concerned we think her explanation is quite satisfactory. Similarly, so far as the petitioner, Kamlesh Kumar Jain, is concerned, he too has not laid any foundation, besides stating his educational qualifications and past experience, to enable this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
