TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 06.09.2020 taken by respondent No.2/election officer appointed by respondent No.1 directing fresh draw of lots of 2/3rd outgoing members of the Central Council of Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (hereinafter referred to as the IIISLA') respondent No.3. 2. Respondent No.3/IIISLA was established under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956; is promoted by respondent No.1 under section 14(2)(f) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India Act, 1999; and is the governing body of the Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors in India. Respondent No.3/IIISLA has been promoted by respondent No.1 for purpose of training, education and regulation of categorized surveyors who are issued licenses as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onducting elections. The concerned regulation is the Regulation and Procedure for Code of Elections framed in 2008. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that they along with 10 other members of IIISLA were appointed to the Central Council in the 11th Council Elections. Subsequently, 12 elected members of the Council including the petitioners were invited and were appointed as Additional Directors. Their appointments were confirmed in the 11th Annual General Meeting held on 03.12.2019. 6. The controversy relates to Rule 3 of the Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors, Regulation and Procedure for conducting the election to the Council. Rule 3 of IIISLA, Regulations and Procedure reads as follows: "(a) As di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht (2/3^rd) members to be retired out of the Council. Respondent No.2 also requested the said eight members to decide 50%, i.e. four members who will retire this year. 8. It is the case of the parties that the four members who were to retire this year were also selected. These four members who are to retire were selected based on the suggestions/preference of the majority members of the Council that were sent to respondent No.2. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of finalising the aforesaid names of retiring members as per list sent to him and to proceed with elections respondent No.2 has done a complete volte face and issued a communication on 06.09.2020 stating that inadvertently the name of Mr. Elango, a deceased Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said members together nominated the four members who are to retire as is apparent from communication dated 28.08.2020. It is pleaded that now on the pretext that the draw of lots is erroneous on account of not having included the name of one of the deceased members of the Council, respondent No.2-the Election Officer on his own without any complaint is seeking to redo the draw. It is pleaded that this is wholly contrary to the stated procedure as per the stated rules and regulations. 3. The petitioner has made out a prima facie case. 4. Issue notice. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 accepts notice. 6. Notice be issued to respondents No. 1 and 2, returnable for 25.09.2020. 7. In the mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Council and 2/3rd members were to be selected in the draw. One of the members had deceased. Accordingly, respondent No.2 now on account of the fact that the death of one of the Council members had been ignored in the earlier draw of lot, seeks to make appropriate modifications. This is obvious from a perusal of the impugned communication dated 06.09.2020, relevant portion of which reads as follows: "Considering that the full council was elected in the year 2019. It is necessary to determine which 4 seats out of 12 will fall vacant in the first year, which 4 seats in the second year and which 4 seats in the third year respectively irrespective of whether any seat is presently vacant or not. Accordingly, the said vacancy created b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tic principles, no member has a right to claim an injunction so as to stall the formation of the governing body of the Association. No such right exists in election matters since exercise of a right conferred by a rule is always subject to the qualifications prescribed and limitations imposed thereunder. The contention of the respondents that the amendment to the Rule whereunder the right to be eligible to contest for any post for the Association or the eligibility to cast the vote at the election, takes away the right completely, is misconceived since by the amendment the right is not taken away but is preserved subject to certain restrictions on its exercise and this could always be done. xxxxx 60. Further, the appellants had ....