TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (4) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 3201 of 1990, dismissing the same. 2. The first appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business as share and stock brokers and the second appellant is a partner of the said firm. They filed the writ petition in the High Court challenging the action of the Respondent No. 1 declaring the appellants as defaulters by its resolution/notice dated 25-3-1987 and to re-admit them as member. Before the High Court mainly two grounds were urged - (1) that the decision of the Respondent No. 1 declaring the appellants as defaulters was in violation of the rules of natural justice as a copy of the impugned resolution/notice dated 25-3-1987 was not furnished nor they were given hearing before taking decision; (2) having regard to the unblemished....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned judgment and order. From the records, they pointed out that all was not well with the appellants; having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that principles of natural justice were violated in passing the order declaring the appellants as defaulters; after the appellants were declared as defaulters, the membership was auctioned and third party rights have come in long back; the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches; according to them, there was no violation of any rule or bye-laws in taking action against the appellants. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We consider it necessary to notice few facts and events which gave rise to taki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such action as was deemed fit including declaring the appellants as defaulters. The Governing Board of the Respondent No. 1 in its meeting held on 25-3-1987 declared the appellants as defaulters. A notice intimating the said declaration was affixed on the notice board of the respondent No. 1 as required by the rules and bye-laws. The appellants by their letter dated 31-3-1987 requested for revocation of the decision declaring the appellants as defaulters; the same was rejected by the Governing Board on 9-4-1987. Pursuant to the resolution dated 31-1-1989, offers were invited for sale of the membership right which was originally held by the appellants. By a resolution dated 21-4-1989, the offer of one Vijay C. Shah was accepted for Rs. 16,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejected on 9-4-1987. 8. In the light of the averments made in the writ petition, counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and looking to the correspondence, it is clear that the appellants were aware of their being declared as defaulters in the month of March, 1987 itself. The same is evident even from the first paragraph of their own letter dated 31-3-1987. They chose to file writ petition only on 26-10-1990. No doubt in the meantime they had made several representations to various authorities. The plea of the appellants for revocation of the action declaring them as defaulters was rejected on 9-4-1987. A notice declaring them as defaulters had been affixed on the notice board. Prior to 27-3-1987 they had surrendered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A list of defaulters against whom similar action was taken by the respondent No. 1 was also placed before us during the course of hearing. It was also submitted that in respect of one or two members, action could not be taken because of interim orders issued by court but after interim orders were vacated, action was taken against them also. Thus, the appellants were not discriminated against. Further, in their letter dated 31-3-1987 they had stated that they were highly obliged to the authorities of the Exchange for the co-operation extended to them and particularly to the Executive Director. Hence, it is not possible to accept the allegation of malice made against the executive director of the Respondent No. 1. The contention that the deci....