Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: proxy voting in Cherian Abraham vs Babu Daniel on 14 December, 2020Matching Fragments
3. Two among the main issues raised in the plaint is that since the forensic audit had already commenced, Dr.Cherian Abraham is attempting to stall the same for his own vested interest, by calling for an EGM and that the notice dated 17.08.2019, permitting voting through proxy is contrary to the Bye-laws of the society and therefore illegal.
4. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior counsel appearing for Dr.Cherian Abraham contended that the notice calling for voting through proxies is in conformity with the Bye-laws governing the Madras Medical Mission Society and that there is no violation of the http://www.judis.nic.in procedure in calling for an EGM under the Bye-laws. It is his further contention that merely because the term “Proxy” is absent under Clause 89 of the Bye-laws, it cannot be said that the voting by proxies are prohibited, for which contention, he placed reliance on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sundar V. Srinivasan Vs. Ramasathyanarayana [2018 (1) CTC 35].
5. Per contra, Mr.Thomas Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for Mr.Babu Daniel contended that Dr.Cherian Abraham is attempting to curtail the forensic audit through the present appeal and that, calling for an EGM by permitting proxy votes is not permissible under the Bye-laws. He further submitted that the Proxy Form enclosed along with the impugned notice has been altered and is not in conformity with the Form prescribed under the Bye-laws.
15. Insofar as the merits of the appeal are concerned, the http://www.judis.nic.in learned Senior counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Clause 89 of the Bye-laws of the Association and contended that proxy voting is not excluded in the Bye-laws and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned suit-notice providing for such proxies.
16.1. The validity or legality of the provision for proxy votes in the impugned suit-notice does not require consideration for two reasons. Firstly, the permissibility of proxy votes in the proposed EGM under the impugned suit-notice is one of the main issues in the suit. The plaint averments indicate allegations of undue influence exercised by Dr.Cherian Abraham, while obtaining signatures for conducting the EGM for the purpose of recalling the resolutions of conduct of a forensic audit by a professional agency and suspension of Dr.Cherian Abraham and another from the positions held by them in the society. Further, averments questioning the legality of inclusion of proxy votes in the proposed EGM and allegations of manipulations of the Proxy Form in the Bye-laws have been made. These averments could possibly be framed as issues, which requires to be established during the course of a trial, by letting in evidences. While that being so, it would be desirable that the issue http://www.judis.nic.in of proxy votes in the proposed EGM, should be left open for adjudication in the suit, rather than rendering a finding by this Court.
16.4. By adopting the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate for this Court to render a finding on the 'Proxy Vote' issue. In this backdrop, consideration of the ratio in Sundar V. Srinivasan's case (supra), relied upon by the appellant, would be a futile exercise.
17. Secondly, any findings on the legality of the inclusion of proxy vote in the proposed EGM would tantamount to deciding the main relief in the suit itself. The suit has been filed challenging the http://www.judis.nic.in validity of the notice issued by a suspended member, in which, one among the issues of inclusion of proxy votes as a mode of voting, has been challenged. When the legality of the notice itself is under challenge, consideration for conducting the EGM by proxy votes, by this Court, will effectively decide the main relief claimed in the suit, without subjecting the parties to a proper trial and framing of the relevant issues, which exercise, could be impermissible. If this Court is to render its findings on the permissibility of proxy votes and consequently declare the outcome of the EGM, there would be no issues pending for adjudication in the main suit and the relief claimed therein may become infructuous.