Difference between revisions of "Major Mella Singh vs President, Jullundur Club Ltd. 1969 39 CompCas 1018 P H"

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 138233
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Major Mella Singh vs President, Jullundur Club Ltd. 1969 39 CompCas 1018 P H Jullundur Club Ltd., Jullundur Cantonment, is an open constrained organization joined under the In...")
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 14:41, 1 July 2020

Major Mella Singh vs President, Jullundur Club Ltd. 1969 39 CompCas 1018 P H Jullundur Club Ltd., Jullundur Cantonment, is an open constrained organization joined under the Indian Companies Act. The yearly comprehensive gathering of the club for the year 1968 was hung on 28th of September, 1968, at the club premises. Major Mella Singh (resigned), an inhabitant of Jullundur Cantonment and a changeless individual from the club, had presented certain complaints recorded as a hard copy to the club, bringing up specific inconsistencies, for the most part identifying with the records, and so on., which records were to be passed at that regular gathering. As per Major Mella Singh, who is the petitioner for this situation, this irritated the board, dealing with the issues of the club, which, bury alia, included Group Captain J. G. Shukla, who managed at the aforementioned yearly regular gathering of the club without the executive. Six people were to be chosen as the individuals from the overseeing advisory group for the following year. For these six posts, seven names were proposed and supported, including the name of Major Mella Singh, Petitioner. Out of the staying six, four were officials of the protection powers including Group-Captain Shukla and two were regular citizen individuals, to be specific, Mr. K. S. Mathra Dass and Guru Amarjit Singh. In this manner, there being seven names for six opening, votes must be taken. The petitioner and four others requested "election by poll". Article 27 of the articles of association of the club relating to the question of voting expounds that: "Every question submitted to the meeting shall be decided in the first instance by the usual show of hands...............Unless a poll is demanded by at least five members, a declaration by the chairman that a resolution has been carried by a particular majority, or lost or not carried by a particular majority, and an entry to that effect in the book of proceedings of the club shall be conclusive evidence of fact without proof of the number or proportion of the votes recorded in favour of or against such resolutions. ". As the requirements of this article were fulfilled inasmuch as five members had demanded a poll, this request was granted and the chairman explained that under Article 28 of the articles of association he, as the chairman, was to fix the manner, time and place of the poll. The chairman directed that the poll be taken then and there and the procedure adopted by him was as given in the minutes of the meeting of the club (exhibit R.W.-1) as follows: "The chairman then decided to divide the house into two parts and asked for volunteers from each part of the house for counting the votes. He further confirmed from the house that nobody objected to the appointment of these two members for counting votes. He then explained to the house the system of the poll which was that on the announcement of the name of each of seven candidates, members in favour of each would raise their left hand. These could be counted by the respective member appointed for the purpose who would convey the count loudly to the chairman. The chairman would then add both the sides and the proxies, if any, and would announce the total votes secured by each candidate. The six candidates securing maximum votes would be declared elected members of the committee." In view of the above, therefore, the court that there was no illegality in the procedure followed by the chairman in taking the poll and this petition has, therefore, to be dismissed. however, it can be added that, though, technically speaking, the chairman is not bound to take votes by a secret ballot when a poll is demanded, yet, in an institution like the club, which is not a commercial concern, it is highly desirable, in order to maintain the proper atmosphere in the club and to inspire complete confidence in the management that, whenever a poll is demanded, the chairman should normally have the voting done by ballot which would not indicate the name of the person voting in any particular manner. In other words, it is highly desirable that the voting should be taken by a secret ballot. With these observations, The Hon’ble court dismiss this petition leaving the parties to bear their own cost