Writ Plea Challenging Appointment of DDCA’s Ombudsman Rejected as Alternative Remedy to Approach AA Was Available | HC

Case Details: Siddharth Sahib Singh v. Apex Council of DDCA - [2023] 154 taxmann.com 200 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Subramonium Prasad, J.
  • Sachin Puri, Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advs., Vishnu Langawat, Vishal Bhatnagar, Praveen Kumar Sharma, Chaitanya Gusain & Anand Thumbayil, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Rajeev Nayyar, Sandeep Sethi, Mohit Mathur, Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advs., Ms Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Shyam Sharma, Manik Dogra, T. Singhdev, Ms Ramanpreet Kaur, Rohit Bhagat, Ms Ameya V. Thanvi, Abhijit Chakrabarty, Aabhas Sukhramani, Tanishq Srivastava, Ms Anum Hussain, Vikram Singh, Ms Shreya Sethi, Ms Tanvi Tewari, Bhanu Gulati & Saurabh Chadda, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) was a company and was the governing body for cricket activities in the State of Delhi and the Delhi Cricket Team. The Apex Council of DDCA being a principal body was tasked with governance of the affairs of DDCA.

It issued notice for the convening of an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of members of DDCA for ratifying its resolution by which the Apex Council had appointed the Former Chief Justice (CJI) of the High Court as Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer of DDCA.

The petitioner, the Secretary of DDCA had filed an instant writ petition alleging that article 10(5)(f) of the Articles of Association (AoA) of DDCA specifically provided that appointment of Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer of DDCA could be done only at an Annual General Meeting of General Body of Apex Council.

In view of the fact that Article 18(2) of AoA bars Apex Council to do such acts which were expressly directed to be done by the General Body, and thus, Apex Council ought not to have appointed, a former CJI as Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer of DDCA in a clandestine manner.

It was noted that an equally efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to approach the NCLT and, thus, if the appointment of an Ombudsman was contrary to laws laid down in AoA of DDCA, it was always open for the NCLT to stay the effect of resolution and reverse any order passed by Ombudsman or any action taken by him/her if it was not in the interest of DDCA.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case that it was imperative for the writ Court to entertain the instant writ petition even though an equally efficacious alternative remedy/forum was available to the petitioner.

Therefore, the writ Court was not inclined to entertain the instant petition and the instant petition was to be dismissed. Thus, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the NCLT for redressal of its grievance.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 (para 13) followed.
  • South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023] 149 taxmann.com 330 (SC) (para 22) distinguished.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Rajinder Kumar v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 1878 of 2020, dated 28-2-2020] (para 5)
  • Delhi & District Cricket Association v. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal 2020 SCC Online Del 1223 (para 5)
  • Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes [1964] 6 SCR 654 (para 9)
  • CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36/217 Taxman 143/357 ITR 357 (SC) (para 10)
  • Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs v. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla 2022 SCC Online SC 1653 (para 11)
  • South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023] 149 taxmann.com 330 (SC) (para 12)
  • Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority 2023 SCC Online SC 95 (para 13).