M.P. Tyagi and Anr. v. Sh. Anil Kapoor and Anr.

1. Present suithas beenfiled bytheplaintiff interalia praying asunder:

2. Apreliminary objection has been raised by the defendants stating that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit in view of Article 22 of the Memorandum of Association of the Military Engineer Services Builders Association ofIndia.

3. Attention of the Court is drawn to para 20 of the plaint which reads as under "That now with the above as series of events, it is required that the whole election process be put to the scrutiny, nomination papers, ^ proposmg, seconding and payment of dues be thoroughly checked with the cross-checking of the persons carrying out the proposing and seconding. Ifin the process the candidature ofthe candidates is required to bcancelled for violation ofthe laws and rules, same be declared accordingly. If after rejection of such candidature, the election result of the candidate(s) could be declared, same be declared. And to complete the election process either the repolling should be ordered or General Body meeting for the same purposes be called as provided in the mles and regulations ofthe MES BAl. The plaintiffs were concerned that the ballot boxes were gone without information, whereas for past more than 20 years the elections ofthe branch was declared by 8pm maximum. Even the Memorandum of Association points out the result should be declared immediately after voting. The directions ofthe defendant CS(OS)N0.1788/2015 i No.2 in this regard is that the elections be completed by 3].05.15 and result be declared by 05.06.15 failing which the branch would be debarred. The election result of the branch is treated to be declared and finalized as and when the defendant No.2 declares the same byuploading the same under his signatures atthe website and as the result of the MES BAI Delhi branch is not declared so far. There is/was provision ofdisputes resolution mechanism ofDRCC, which stood suspended as the chairman of the council Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma ofM/s. Vinod Kumar Sharma had resigned from the post on 16.04.2015 and this the suit and the applications can be entertained anddecided bythe Hon'ble Court."

4. Learned counsel for the defendants have also drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit dated 15.5.2015 filed by Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma and the minutes ofthe meeting held on 7.5.2015 wherein item No.3 ofthe agenda shows that Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma has resigned as Chairman from the Amendment Committee only. Affidavit dated 15.5.2015 reads as under: AFFIDAVIT "Affidavit ofMr. Vinod Kumar Sharma Son ofLate Shri Jai Kishan Sharma R/o 6Chanan Singh Park, Kirbi Palace, Delhi Cantt., Delhi, age about 59 years. The above said deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under

1. That the deponent is the Chairman of DRRC/Dispute Redress Reconciliation Committee of MES Builders Association ofIndia Head Quarters at Delhi as per rule 22 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association MES BAI.

2. That the deponent has never resigned from the office of Chairman DRRC and is at present also continuing as Chairman ofDRRC. CS(OS)NO.1788/2015

3. That however deponent resigned from Amendment Committee as Chairman on 15.04.2015, the same has no connection with deponent's functioning as Chairman of DRRC."

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that since the minutes were not circulated the plaintiffs are not aware as to whether Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma has resigned from the Chairmanship of the Managing Committe orthe Chairmanship ofthe Dispute Redressal Mechanism.

6. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the plaintiffs seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the present suit to enable the plaintiffs to take lecourse to the remedies, which may be available to him in accordance with law.

7. Accordingly, suit and application (I.A.NO.12454/2015 (O XXXIX R1& 2 CPC) stand dismissed as withdrawn. Interim order dated 9.6.2015 stands vacated. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. Since issues are yet to be framed, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to refund ofhalfofthe Court fee. LA.12509/2015 (O VII RH CPC) &LA. 12510/2015 (O XXXTX R4CPC) (Both by defendant

8. Applications stand dismissed as withdrawn in view ofthe order passed in the suit.

9. Dasti. G.S.SISTANI OTJNE 24,2015 (VACATION JUDGE) msr/rb