VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) CIVIL Misc. No. 16956-CII of 2006 is allowed. The main case is restored to its original number and taken up for hearing. CR No. 6134 of 2006
(2.) RESPONDENTS herein had filed a suit for declaration that the election of the Directors held on 24.8.2005 at the Annual General Meeting of M/s Northern India Stock Exchange Limited (defendant No. 1) herein is illegal, null and void being violative of the express provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act) and Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and for a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant Nos. 2 to 6 to act as Directors of the Company and defendant No. 2 from acting as President of the Company and also restraining defendant No. 9 (i.e. The Registrar of Companies, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh) from taking on record Form No. 32 and annual return dated 24.9.2005 and further for grant of permanent mandatory injunction directing the defendants to conduct the elections of Directors afresh as per the provisions of the Act and Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. On notice having been served the petitioners-defendants No. 1, 2 and 5 to 8 filed application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 1996 Act) for stay of the suit and referring the parties to arbitration. It was pleaded in the application that the plaintiffs had claimed themselves to be the members and Directors of defendant No. 1 and were relying upon Memorandum and Article of Association of the company of which copy was placed on record thereof. It was also claimed that no notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued to defendant No. 9 and the plaintiffs had not made any effort for service for this defendant. The case of the petitioners herein was that under Article 138 of the Articles of Association of the company, the dispute between the parties was required to be referred to the Arbitrator to be appointed by defendant No. 1 and therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in dispute and therefore, the said suit was not maintainable. A copy of the arbitration clause was also placed on record.
(3.) THE said application was contested by the plaintiff-respondents where he denied the averments made by the petitioners herein and averred that the application was not maintainable because the petitioners herein had violated statutory provisions of Sections 257 and 258, 172(1) and 173(2) etc. of the Act besides violating Articles 109 and 110 of Articles of Association of the company.;