Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High court on Monday refused to entertain a plea by Secretary of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) against a June 10 notice issued by the Apex Council of DDCA, for convening the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting (EGM) of its members at the Arun Jaitley Stadium, Ferozshah Kotla Ground, New Delhi.

While disposing of the petition, the bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad said, “The Petitioner has not made out a case that it is imperative for this Court to entertain the present Writ Petition even though an ‘equally efficacious alternative remedy/forum’ is available to the Petitioner and that the Ombudsman can pass such orders which are irreversible in nature and cannot be rectified if they are found to be faulty”.

The court granted liberty to the petitioner, Siddharth Sahib Singh to approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

“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…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 said.

Singh moved the high court seeking direction to quash a June 10 notice issued by the DDCA for convening the EGM of the members on July 5 at the association's office at Arun Jaitley Stadium, Ferozshah Kotla Ground.

The agenda of the meeting was to ratify the April 10 resolution by which the apex council had appointed Justice (retd) M M Kumar, a former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, as the DDCA ombudsman-cum-ethics officer. The petitioner challenged the notice on the ground that the EGM was contrary to the procedures laid down in the AoA.

On perusal of provisions of the Companies Act, the single-judge bench said that the NCLT has the power to regulate the conduct of affairs of the company.

"It cannot be said that if this court does not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India an irreversible damage would be caused to the DDCA and the same cannot be rectified by the courts or that the DDCA will be subjected to an irreparable loss which needs urgent restraint orders”, the court said in its 30-page order.

The court also made it clear that it did not make any observation on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Siddharth Sahib Singh v. Apex Council of DDCA