The Delhi High Court today refused to stay the removal of Ashok Arora from the post of Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). (Ashok Arora vs SCBA).The interim order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta in the suit preferred by Ashok Arora against his ouster..Since at this stage this Court is only required to take a prima facie view, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case in his favour for grant of injunction as prayed for.Delhi High Court said. .Order on grant of any interim relief in the suit was reserved by the Single Judge last month after hearing Arora and counsel for Bar Council of India and SCBA..Delhi HC reserves order in Ashok Arora's plea to stay his removal from the post of Secretary, SCBA.It is Arora's case that his ouster was void ab initio, as it was in violation of Rule 35 of the SCBA Rules..Arora argued that as per Rule 35, the power to suspend or expel a member rested with the General House of SCBA and same had to be decided after an inquiry into a complaint of misconduct is carried out by a committee..He alleged that his removal by the Executive Committee of SCBA was in violation of principles of natural justice..SCBA, on the other hand, contended that Arora's reliance on Rule 35 was misplaced as it only dealt with the issue of removal of a member..Claiming that there was a vacuum in the SCBA Rules with respect to elected members who "misbehave", SCBA submitted that there have been past precedents on the practice of suspending elected members from SCBA posts under Rule 14. .It was also stated that all principles of natural justice were followed in the meeting of the Executive Committee as not only did the President recuse from the deliberations, Arora was also given the chance to present his views and counter-views..Agreeing with SCBA, the Court noted that Rule 35 had no application to the suspension/termination of the status/position of a member of SCBA as an office bearer of its Association and thus there was no prima facie case in favour of Arora. .It added that while Arora has alleged that the acts of some of the members of the Executive Committee of SCBA were malafide, the same was required to be "raised specifically" and members were required to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. .Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam appeared for SCBA. Advocate Rajdipa Behura appeared for BCI..Following Arora's call for an Emergent General Meeting to remove Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave from the post of SCBA President, the Executive Council of SCBA had suspended Arora from the position of the Secretary with immediate effect..Bar Council of India (BCI) subsequently stayed the resolution passed by the Executive Committee (EC) of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) by which Advocate Ashok Arora was suspended from the post of Secretary..Read the Order:
The Delhi High Court today refused to stay the removal of Ashok Arora from the post of Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). (Ashok Arora vs SCBA).The interim order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta in the suit preferred by Ashok Arora against his ouster..Since at this stage this Court is only required to take a prima facie view, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case in his favour for grant of injunction as prayed for.Delhi High Court said. .Order on grant of any interim relief in the suit was reserved by the Single Judge last month after hearing Arora and counsel for Bar Council of India and SCBA..Delhi HC reserves order in Ashok Arora's plea to stay his removal from the post of Secretary, SCBA.It is Arora's case that his ouster was void ab initio, as it was in violation of Rule 35 of the SCBA Rules..Arora argued that as per Rule 35, the power to suspend or expel a member rested with the General House of SCBA and same had to be decided after an inquiry into a complaint of misconduct is carried out by a committee..He alleged that his removal by the Executive Committee of SCBA was in violation of principles of natural justice..SCBA, on the other hand, contended that Arora's reliance on Rule 35 was misplaced as it only dealt with the issue of removal of a member..Claiming that there was a vacuum in the SCBA Rules with respect to elected members who "misbehave", SCBA submitted that there have been past precedents on the practice of suspending elected members from SCBA posts under Rule 14. .It was also stated that all principles of natural justice were followed in the meeting of the Executive Committee as not only did the President recuse from the deliberations, Arora was also given the chance to present his views and counter-views..Agreeing with SCBA, the Court noted that Rule 35 had no application to the suspension/termination of the status/position of a member of SCBA as an office bearer of its Association and thus there was no prima facie case in favour of Arora. .It added that while Arora has alleged that the acts of some of the members of the Executive Committee of SCBA were malafide, the same was required to be "raised specifically" and members were required to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. .Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam appeared for SCBA. Advocate Rajdipa Behura appeared for BCI..Following Arora's call for an Emergent General Meeting to remove Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave from the post of SCBA President, the Executive Council of SCBA had suspended Arora from the position of the Secretary with immediate effect..Bar Council of India (BCI) subsequently stayed the resolution passed by the Executive Committee (EC) of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) by which Advocate Ashok Arora was suspended from the post of Secretary..Read the Order:
