Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(g) It was alleged that proxy system of voting is being implemented by Defendant No.2 & Defendant No.3, as is apparent from letter dated 03.08.2010 issued by the Club whereby the time schedule for elections of the Managing Committee were announced. It was specifically alleged that there was no mention of voting by secret ballot in the said letter, rather a proxy form was enclosed which would give an impression that the election is only through proxy voting.

(e) It was denied that the members of the Club were given an impression that voting was only by proxy and not by casting vote personally through secret ballot.It was further contended that neither the present Managing Committee nor the members of the Managing Committee after 1977 had any role in amending the Rules and Regulations.
(f) It was refuted that the mode of proxy voting was never discussed or approved by the General Body in any meeting. All the allegations of the plaintiffs were thus denied.

33.Plaintiff no 1 thus contended that the defendants ought to have adhered to the Original Memorandum of Association dated 17.02.1973. However, defendants did not file this Memorandum of Association, but filed their own Memorandum of Association, which allows proxy voting. Plaintiff further submitted that allowing voting by proxies is in violation of Rule 6 (c), Rule 8 and Rule 13(f) of Memorandum of Association, registered in 1973. Plaintiff also contended that the purported amended Memorandum of Association, has not been duly registered, stamped or proved by the Registration of Societies, nor has amended Memorandum of Association, been proved by 3/5th of voting members of the club.

Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:36 +0530 amendments had not been approved and therefore cannot be given effect to.
37.It was submitted that the above-mentioned letters were proved by PW-4 Ms Geeta Kapur. It was thus contended that it has not been proved by the defendants that the Memorandum of Association of Safdarjung Club was amended in the year 1977. It was submitted that as per Board of Control of Cricket Vs Cricket Association of Bihar, CA 4235 of 2014 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was mandated that cricket association shall not have proxy voting. Plaintiff placed reliance on the said judgment to contend that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated the practice of voting by proxies.