BEFORE THE ELECTION TRlBUNAL NEW DELID

[ESTABLISHED US lOB OF THE COMPANY SECRETARIES ACT 1980]

APPLICATION NO 52015

IN THE MATTER OF

CS Sanjay Kumar Gupta

VS

Applicant (in person)

CS Santosh Kumar Agrawala Respondent

(Represented by Shr Pradeep Kumar Millai Advocate Shr Praveen K Millal Advocate

Shri Govind Kumar Advocate Shr Monish Singh Advocate)

30032016

ORDER

I This Application dated 22012015 has been filed by CS Sanjay

Kumar Gupta the Applicant herein under Section 10CA) of the

Company Secretaries Act 1980 (the Act) raising a dispute

regarding the election of CS Santosh Kumar Agrawala the

Respondent as a Member of the Central Council of the Institute of

Company Secretaries of India (the ICSI ) from the Eastern India

Regional Constituency of the ICSI in the Central Councils Election

of the ICSI held in December 2014

1

2 The Applicant stated that he was a call1lidate for the Election to the

Councilor the ICSI from the bastem lndia Reg ional Counci l

Constituency held un 121220 14 The Applicant submitted that he

lost the contest due to unfair practices adopted by the other

candidates including the Respondent who won the election

3 The Applicant alleged that there were numerous of instances of

v iola tio ns of (a) The Company Secretaries (Election to the

Council) Rules 2006 (I he Rules) (b ) Codc or Conduct of

Elections (c) Directi ves issued from time to time by Returning

Officerihis oOice (d) Ad visories issued from time to lime by

Returning Office rhis oftic( ltInd (c) other communicatio n by the

Ret urning Officerhis o ffice

4 The Applicant further a lleged that the Return ing Officer in his

communication dated 10 112014 sent to all the contesting

candidates Advisory - II dated 13 102014 and Directive - III

dalcd 27112014 had observed the violalion of Flcction Code of

Conduct Advisories and Directives by some of the candidates

5 The Applicant further alleged that in his manifesto the Respondent

used at numbe r of places the photographs or the programmes of the

leSt aueoded and addressed by him in v io lat ion of Election Rules

Elect ion CoJ e o r Conducl Advisor ies and Direclives issued by the

Re lUrn ing Officer The Applicant further a lleged (hat the

Respondent had issued more than one manifes tocircular in

v io la tio n and disregard to the Rules Elecrio n Code Adv isories and

2

2 The Applicant stated that he was a call1lidate for the Election to the

Councilor the ICSI from the bastem lndia Reg ional Counci l

Constituency held un 121220 14 The Applicant submitted that he

lost the contest due to unfair practices adopted by the other

candidates including the Respondent who won the election

3 The Applicant alleged that there were numerous of instances of

v iola tio ns of (a) The Company Secretaries (Election to the

Council) Rules 2006 (I he Rules) (b ) Codc or Conduct of

Elections (c) Directi ves issued from time to time by Returning

Officerihis oOice (d) Ad visories issued from time to lime by

Returning Office rhis oftic( ltInd (c) other communicatio n by the

Ret urning Officerhis o ffice

4 The Applicant further a lleged that the Return ing Officer in his

communication dated 10 112014 sent to all the contesting

candidates Advisory - II dated 13 102014 and Directive - III

dalcd 27112014 had observed the violalion of Flcction Code of

Conduct Advisories and Directives by some of the candidates

5 The Applicant further alleged that in his manifesto the Respondent

used at numbe r of places the photographs or the programmes of the

leSt aueoded and addressed by him in v io lat ion of Election Rules

Elect ion CoJ e o r Conducl Advisor ies and Direclives issued by the

Re lUrn ing Officer The Applicant further a lleged (hat the

Respondent had issued more than one manifes tocircular in

v io la tio n and disregard to the Rules Elecrio n Code Adv isories and

2

the Directives and also deliberately suppressed this fact by not

sending the additional manifes to circula r to the Retuming Officer

6 The Respondent in his Wrillen Statement dated 30 1020 I 5 denied

the allegations o r the Applicant and submitted thaI application

against him is false base less malatjde and rri volous without any

evidence The Respondent submitted that the Applicant has

contested Central Council Election several times in the past abo ut

45 [IlLempts but has never been successfu l in any attempt and it is

lor th is grudge and desperateness he has IiIcd applications aga inst

the -vinning candidates for the election held in Decem ber 2014

7 The Respondent submitted that he has not used rC STs any

photographs in his mani festo circulated to the Members for the

Councit Ejection held in December 20 14 He fu rth t r submitted rlml

t Sl in the photograph of the manifesto he -vas speaking at tbe

shareholders general meetin g as Company Secretary of Balrmnpur

Chilli Mills Ltd held 0 11 30072002 alld in the 2 photograph he

WDS giving away 8alrampur Ch ini Awmds to a student organized

by the Telegraph School Award Cor Excellence in AuguSl 2002 at

Kolke-tln The Respondent along with written slatement has also

enclosed the original photograpbs

8 The Respondent deni d that he has issued more than one

manifes tocircular He submitted that he has not issued mOre than

Olle manifestocircu lar to the Members The manifesto wh ich has

been circulated to the Members has been senl to the ICSI in

compliance vvith lh e rules

3

9 Since the Eleclion was conducted by the ICSt) in order to ascertain

(he true and correct r1lctual pos ition of the maHer the rCSI was

requested to provide its comments on the Application The iCSI in

its cOl11 mcnts dated 1611201Ssla ted that in (he copy of Man ifes to

JI1ed by Respondent with the Returning Officer it is seen that the

logo of ICS I was not included in any of the photographs shown in

the Manifesto The lCS ( tltrlher submitted thm the Respondent

fil ed one ManitCs to with the Returning Officer and hat no othe r

Manifes to Circular alleged to have been issued by him is on

record The [CSJ furth er submitted tbat only one Manifesto was

rece ived by the Returning Officer (rom the Respondent

to The Applicant in his reJoinder daled 23 1120 15 submitted that he

repeats and rei terates his allegation made in the Application and

denied the submissions made by the Respondent in his written

stCl tement The Aprl ieant vide letter dated 101220 J 5 along with

supr or(ing aflidavit submitted additi onal doc llments ie emCl il

dilted 22 1 120 14 alleged to has been sent by the Respondent to one

of the voters

k 11 The maller was heard on 04012016 in the presence of both the

part ies The Applicant appeared in ptroO Il whereas the Respondent

appeared through his advocates The Parties reiterated the ir

respective contentions

12 Thc Applicant argued that as per Rule 42(2) and Rule 42(3)(1) of

the Election Rules a candidate can issue only one manifesto or

4

9 Since the Eleclion was conducted by the ICSt) in order to ascertain

(he true and correct r1lctual pos ition of the maHer the rCSI was

requested to provide its comments on the Application The iCSI in

its cOl11 mcnts dated 1611201Ssla ted that in (he copy of Man ifes to

JI1ed by Respondent with the Returning Officer it is seen that the

logo of ICS I was not included in any of the photographs shown in

the Manifesto The lCS ( tltrlher submitted thm the Respondent

fil ed one ManitCs to with the Returning Officer and hat no othe r

Manifes to Circular alleged to have been issued by him is on

record The [CSJ furth er submitted tbat only one Manifesto was

rece ived by the Returning Officer (rom the Respondent

to The Applicant in his reJoinder daled 23 1120 15 submitted that he

repeats and rei terates his allegation made in the Application and

denied the submissions made by the Respondent in his written

stCl tement The Aprl ieant vide letter dated 101220 J 5 along with

supr or(ing aflidavit submitted additi onal doc llments ie emCl il

dilted 22 1 120 14 alleged to has been sent by the Respondent to one

of the voters

k 11 The maller was heard on 04012016 in the presence of both the

part ies The Applicant appeared in ptroO Il whereas the Respondent

appeared through his advocates The Parties reiterated the ir

respective contentions

12 Thc Applicant argued that as per Rule 42(2) and Rule 42(3)(1) of

the Election Rules a candidate can issue only one manifesto or

4

circular however caodidme may repeat such ma nifes to o r circular

in any foml w ithout changing its contems He a lso argued that as

per C lau~e 4(xxi) of E lection Code of Conduct mcmifesto o r

e ireu lar may be repeated il1 any form including SMS without

changing the contents thereof any manner and that in any other

communication in relation to the ekct ion issued by the candidate in

electronic form or otherwise shall be deemed to be second

manilesto or circular and wi ll be in cont ravention of the Election

Rules He vehemcntly acgucd that as rer combined reading of

a foresaid prov is ions the emai l da ted 22l l 20 14 of the Respondent

vide which he sent his manifc~no to one or the voters is deemed to

be second c ircuhn liS sa id ema ils is electronic conu1)unica tions by

the Respondent and are in cootravenrion of the Rule 42 of the

F lection Rules

13 Mr P K Mittal leamed advocate for the respondent reiterated the

contentions raised in the written statement and argued that lhe

Respondent has nut llsed ICS ls logo in any photographs in

his manifesto circu l at~d to the members for the Counci l E lection

held in December 2014 and that in the I photogwph of the

mnnifeslo he was speak ing at the shareholders general meeting as

Company SecretalY o r Balrampuf Chini Mi lls Ltd held on

21130072002 and in the photograph he WHS g l VlI1g away

Ba lrampur Chini Awards to a swdeor org(lniz~d by the Telegraph

School Award tor Excellence in August 2002 at Ko lkata

14 Th~ ielt1rl1ed Advocate veheJ11Cntly argued that th e a lleged ema il

dated 22 1120 14 cannot be termed as second manifesto as said 5

ema ils are mainly covering letters vide which Election Maniresto

were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or request for

vote in tbe sa id emaii He furth er argued that the observation of the

returning unicer in his Advisory I Directives regard ing the

violat ion of Code orConducl Advjsory and Directives by the so me

of the candidales docs not mention the name or any candidate

hence the same canno be construed against the Respondent in any

manner

l5 The learned advocate further argued that from the face of the

mani testo of the Respondent til ed by the Applicant along with his

app lica tion it is clear that no photograph(s) logo of lCST pertaining

to event programme organ ized by the ICS t has been used in the

manifesto of Ihe Respondent The learned advocate further argued

that the Appl icant has not placed any dOClImelH evidence show ing

Ihat the Resrondenl has vio lated any of the provision or clause or

Elect ion Rules Ekctioll Code of Conducted Directives Advisory

issued by retuming offlcer

16 The parries were given liherty 10 fi le their written arguments made

by them dudog the COlirse or argumenr The Applicanl as well as

the respondent ha ve filed their respective written arguments BOlh

the partics in their n s- pective -vritten arguments reiterated their

submissions made in aprication written statement and oral

arguments advltInced during the course of arguments in the matter

The applicanr also quoted the provis ions of Election Rules and

Election Code of Conducts in his Ivritten arguments The

Respondent in his writt en argumenrs subm itted that appljeation of

the Applicant is neither supported hy the verificat ion nor affidavit

6 tgt

and this grou nd alone the application is liable to be rejected He

fUI1her subm itted th at Applicant in hi) clpplication hets not specified

in wh at Vav and in what manner the Act and Rules have been

vio laled by (he Respondent

17 The Tribuna l care fully considered the submissions made by the

parties and also gone through the appli cation wri tten statement

written arguments and all th e documents available on record

t 8 Rule 16 of th e Ejection Rules conferred po - er upon the returning

offi cer lO issue a Eleclion Code or ConducllO maintain a healthy and

peaceful atmosphere during the election process for ensuring a free

and fair election Rule 16 fu rther provides that Election Code of

Conduct shall contain intention and nonns to be fo llowed by the

candidate and their au thorized represernative Ru le 16 makes it

obligatory for each candidate to cOlnp ly with this Election Code of

Cond ucl

19 Rule 42(4)(v ii i) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of

the lCSI to comply with any of the Directives or Circular or

instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in

any Illatte r relating to the elections Rctumillg officer in exercise on

the authority vested him under this rule had issued Advi sory IlI on

3 I- I0-20 14 The same was repeated in Directive I issued on 07-11shy

20 14

20 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) o f the Eleclion Rules

a candidate can isslle on ly on e Mani fes to or circular in relat ion to

7

election during the period commencing fro m the Jate of issue of

final lis( of nomi nat ion to candidates

21 Ekction Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 of the Eleclion Rules was

issued by the Returning OfJiccr on 09920 14 ReSlrictions on use of

photograph(s)Iogo were imposed for the first time by the Retuming

Officer through AIW ISORY-1I1 dated 311020 14 In Adv isory III

dated 31102014 the contesting candidates were advised by the

Re tuning Officer thai lhey shaH not pick up any photographJogo of

the InstiLUtclimagc or tbe building or tbe InstituteRegional

CoullcilslChapters from oflil ial journa l of thc rns titulc or the

Newsletter IMagazines of Reg ional Counci IChapters Clnd use the

$l11e ny Illanner ADVISORY- Ill dated 3 1 t 020 14 was posled

00 the ICS ls website but through inadvertence th e same was not

ernailed to tbe candidates Such restrict ions were repeated by the

Rctul11ing Officer in DrRECTrVE-[ and Direct ive - If vhich were

displayed on the ICSJs wehsi te and also sent through ema il to (he

candidates on 07112014

22 Rule 42 (I) of Ihe Ejection Rules provides that any vi olation of subshy

rule (2) (3) and (4) o f Rule 42 is liable to invi te punishment for

brioging di srepute to the Council of th e [eSl under item (2 ) of Part

IV fthe Fi rst Scheduk of the Company Secretmiddot ies Act 1980

23 From the above fo llow jng issues appear for the adjudication

8

ema ils are mainly covering letters vide which Election Maniresto

were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or request for

vote in tbe sa id emaii He furth er argued that the observation of the

returning unicer in his Advisory I Directives regard ing the

violat ion of Code orConducl Advjsory and Directives by the so me

of the candidales docs not mention the name or any candidate

hence the same canno be construed against the Respondent in any

manner

l5 The learned advocate further argued that from the face of the

mani testo of the Respondent til ed by the Applicant along with his

app lica tion it is clear that no photograph(s) logo of lCST pertaining

to event programme organ ized by the ICS t has been used in the

manifesto of Ihe Respondent The learned advocate further argued

that the Appl icant has not placed any dOClImelH evidence show ing

Ihat the Resrondenl has vio lated any of the provision or clause or

Elect ion Rules Ekctioll Code of Conducted Directives Advisory

issued by retuming offlcer

16 The parries were given liherty 10 fi le their written arguments made

by them dudog the COlirse or argumenr The Applicanl as well as

the respondent ha ve filed their respective written arguments BOlh

the partics in their n s- pective -vritten arguments reiterated their

submissions made in aprication written statement and oral

arguments advltInced during the course of arguments in the matter

The applicanr also quoted the provis ions of Election Rules and

Election Code of Conducts in his Ivritten arguments The

Respondent in his writt en argumenrs subm itted that appljeation of

the Applicant is neither supported hy the verificat ion nor affidavit

6 tgt

and this grou nd alone the application is liable to be rejected He

fUI1her subm itted th at Applicant in hi) clpplication hets not specified

in wh at Vav and in what manner the Act and Rules have been

vio laled by (he Respondent

17 The Tribuna l care fully considered the submissions made by the

parties and also gone through the appli cation wri tten statement

written arguments and all th e documents available on record

t 8 Rule 16 of th e Ejection Rules conferred po - er upon the returning

offi cer lO issue a Eleclion Code or ConducllO maintain a healthy and

peaceful atmosphere during the election process for ensuring a free

and fair election Rule 16 fu rther provides that Election Code of

Conduct shall contain intention and nonns to be fo llowed by the

candidate and their au thorized represernative Ru le 16 makes it

obligatory for each candidate to cOlnp ly with this Election Code of

Cond ucl

19 Rule 42(4)(v ii i) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of

the lCSI to comply with any of the Directives or Circular or

instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in

any Illatte r relating to the elections Rctumillg officer in exercise on

the authority vested him under this rule had issued Advi sory IlI on

3 I- I0-20 14 The same was repeated in Directive I issued on 07-11shy

20 14

20 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) o f the Eleclion Rules

a candidate can isslle on ly on e Mani fes to or circular in relat ion to

7

election during the period commencing fro m the Jate of issue of

final lis( of nomi nat ion to candidates

21 Ekction Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 of the Eleclion Rules was

issued by the Returning OfJiccr on 09920 14 ReSlrictions on use of

photograph(s)Iogo were imposed for the first time by the Retuming

Officer through AIW ISORY-1I1 dated 311020 14 In Adv isory III

dated 31102014 the contesting candidates were advised by the

Re tuning Officer thai lhey shaH not pick up any photographJogo of

the InstiLUtclimagc or tbe building or tbe InstituteRegional

CoullcilslChapters from oflil ial journa l of thc rns titulc or the

Newsletter IMagazines of Reg ional Counci IChapters Clnd use the

$l11e ny Illanner ADVISORY- Ill dated 3 1 t 020 14 was posled

00 the ICS ls website but through inadvertence th e same was not

ernailed to tbe candidates Such restrict ions were repeated by the

Rctul11ing Officer in DrRECTrVE-[ and Direct ive - If vhich were

displayed on the ICSJs wehsi te and also sent through ema il to (he

candidates on 07112014

22 Rule 42 (I) of Ihe Ejection Rules provides that any vi olation of subshy

rule (2) (3) and (4) o f Rule 42 is liable to invi te punishment for

brioging di srepute to the Council of th e [eSl under item (2 ) of Part

IV fthe Fi rst Scheduk of the Company Secretmiddot ies Act 1980

23 From the above fo llow jng issues appear for the adjudication

8

and this grou nd alone the application is liable to be rejected He

fUI1her subm itted th at Applicant in hi) clpplication hets not specified

in wh at Vav and in what manner the Act and Rules have been

vio laled by (he Respondent

17 The Tribuna l care fully considered the submissions made by the

parties and also gone through the appli cation wri tten statement

written arguments and all th e documents available on record

t 8 Rule 16 of th e Ejection Rules conferred po - er upon the returning

offi cer lO issue a Eleclion Code or ConducllO maintain a healthy and

peaceful atmosphere during the election process for ensuring a free

and fair election Rule 16 fu rther provides that Election Code of

Conduct shall contain intention and nonns to be fo llowed by the

candidate and their au thorized represernative Ru le 16 makes it

obligatory for each candidate to cOlnp ly with this Election Code of

Cond ucl

19 Rule 42(4)(v ii i) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of

the lCSI to comply with any of the Directives or Circular or

instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in

any Illatte r relating to the elections Rctumillg officer in exercise on

the authority vested him under this rule had issued Advi sory IlI on

3 I- I0-20 14 The same was repeated in Directive I issued on 07-11shy

20 14

20 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) o f the Eleclion Rules

a candidate can isslle on ly on e Mani fes to or circular in relat ion to

7

election during the period commencing fro m the Jate of issue of

final lis( of nomi nat ion to candidates

21 Ekction Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 of the Eleclion Rules was

issued by the Returning OfJiccr on 09920 14 ReSlrictions on use of

photograph(s)Iogo were imposed for the first time by the Retuming

Officer through AIW ISORY-1I1 dated 311020 14 In Adv isory III

dated 31102014 the contesting candidates were advised by the

Re tuning Officer thai lhey shaH not pick up any photographJogo of

the InstiLUtclimagc or tbe building or tbe InstituteRegional

CoullcilslChapters from oflil ial journa l of thc rns titulc or the

Newsletter IMagazines of Reg ional Counci IChapters Clnd use the

$l11e ny Illanner ADVISORY- Ill dated 3 1 t 020 14 was posled

00 the ICS ls website but through inadvertence th e same was not

ernailed to tbe candidates Such restrict ions were repeated by the

Rctul11ing Officer in DrRECTrVE-[ and Direct ive - If vhich were

displayed on the ICSJs wehsi te and also sent through ema il to (he

candidates on 07112014

22 Rule 42 (I) of Ihe Ejection Rules provides that any vi olation of subshy

rule (2) (3) and (4) o f Rule 42 is liable to invi te punishment for

brioging di srepute to the Council of th e [eSl under item (2 ) of Part

IV fthe Fi rst Scheduk of the Company Secretmiddot ies Act 1980

23 From the above fo llow jng issues appear for the adjudication

8

election during the period commencing fro m the Jate of issue of

final lis( of nomi nat ion to candidates

21 Ekction Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 of the Eleclion Rules was

issued by the Returning OfJiccr on 09920 14 ReSlrictions on use of

photograph(s)Iogo were imposed for the first time by the Retuming

Officer through AIW ISORY-1I1 dated 311020 14 In Adv isory III

dated 31102014 the contesting candidates were advised by the

Re tuning Officer thai lhey shaH not pick up any photographJogo of

the InstiLUtclimagc or tbe building or tbe InstituteRegional

CoullcilslChapters from oflil ial journa l of thc rns titulc or the

Newsletter IMagazines of Reg ional Counci IChapters Clnd use the

$l11e ny Illanner ADVISORY- Ill dated 3 1 t 020 14 was posled

00 the ICS ls website but through inadvertence th e same was not

ernailed to tbe candidates Such restrict ions were repeated by the

Rctul11ing Officer in DrRECTrVE-[ and Direct ive - If vhich were

displayed on the ICSJs wehsi te and also sent through ema il to (he

candidates on 07112014

22 Rule 42 (I) of Ihe Ejection Rules provides that any vi olation of subshy

rule (2) (3) and (4) o f Rule 42 is liable to invi te punishment for

brioging di srepute to the Council of th e [eSl under item (2 ) of Part

IV fthe Fi rst Scheduk of the Company Secretmiddot ies Act 1980

23 From the above fo llow jng issues appear for the adjudication

8

I Wheth er app licat ion is liable to be rejected on the ground that

app li cation of the Applicant is nei ther support ed bv he

ver ificat ion nor ctffidavit

2 Whether the Respondent has issued more than one Election

manifes to in v iolation of provisions or Election Rules Election

Code of Conducl or (lny o f Advisories Directi ves issued by the

Returning o mCet

3 Whether the Respondent has used the photograph(s) of ICSI

pertaining 10 event program me organized hy the ICST in his

manifes() in vio lation o f prov isions of Election Ru les Election

Code of Conduct or any of AdvisLl ries Directives iss ued by the

returning onicer

4 RelieL if any

The aforesa id issues are discussed her~jn below shy

231 ISSUE NO1

I Whether application is liable to be rejected on the ground

that application or the App licant IS neither supported by the

verification nor aftidnvit

232 Rule No8(l) of the Company Secretari cgt (Elec tion Tribunal)

Rules 2006 made hy the Central Government provides that in the

discharge of the functions the Tribuna l shall he guided by the

principles o f natural justice and subject LO the other provision of

the Act fi nd these Rules the Tribuna l sha ll regulnlc its own

9

middot procedures Hence under these Rules the power has been conferred

upon the Tribunal to regul ate its own procedure in disch arge of its

functi on Only obligation on the Tribunal is to comply with the

princi ples or 1l3wral justice and olher prov isions of the Company

Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rul es In rhe Company Secretari es

Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement

lhat the appli cation tiled before the Tribunal should be verified by

the party or accompanied by a supporting aftidav it to the effect that

content or the application Or pleadings 10 be true and correct Under

these Rul es liberly is granted to th Tri bunal to take the

cogni zance of the applica tion rais ing the lIeclion dispute though

the p leading of such applicati on is not veritl ed or supporteu by

affidav it Therefore we do not find ltIny fo rce in the contention of

the Respondent (O reject the Application on this technical ground

vvithout going into the merit of the case

233 This issue is thus decided against the Responuent and in fa vour of

Applicant

234 ISSUE NO2

2 Wh ether tbe Respondent has issued more than onc Electi on

maniresro jn vio lation of provis ions of E lec tion Rules Election

Code of Conduct or any of Advisories Directives issued by the

Returni ng Officer

23 5 Rule 42(2) o f Ihe Eleclion Rules prov ides lhal only one manifesto

or circul ar sha ll be issued by a candidate in relation to the Election

Rule 42(3 )(f) of the E lccion Rules pruvides that the candidate may

repeat in any form the manifes to or ci rcular without changing its

10

contents but he shall not issue 1110re than one manifesto or circular

Hence a clear restriction is imposed on the candidates to issue only

one manifesto or circular However candidates are given liberty to

repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form without changing

its content In other vyords the change in the contents of manifesto

or circular vould amount to second manifesto The restrictions

contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the

Returning Ollicer in Election Code or Conduct at clause No(xxi)

issued on 092pound 2014

236 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of

the Applieaot that email dated 221120 J4 vide whieh the

respondent has forwarded his manifesto to one of the voters

amounts to second circular has no hasis Admittedly it is not the

case of the applicant that the respondent has changed the contents

or his manifesto

237 lf this argument of the Applicant is accepted then all the emailsl

letLers of the contesting candidates forwarding therewith the

Election manifesto or circular would amount to second manifesto

or circular and the same will result in the violation or Election rules

by all such contesting candidmes This is not the intention of these

Election Rues The argument of the Applicant is based upon the

misunderstanding of Election Rules ltlnd devoid of ltlny merit and

hence not acceptable

238 Furthermore the lC31 In its comments specifically stated that the

Respondent filed one Manifesto witb the Returning Officer and

that no other Manifesto Circular alleged to have been isslled by

)J II

middot procedures Hence under these Rules the power has been conferred

upon the Tribunal to regul ate its own procedure in disch arge of its

functi on Only obligation on the Tribunal is to comply with the

princi ples or 1l3wral justice and olher prov isions of the Company

Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rul es In rhe Company Secretari es

Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement

lhat the appli cation tiled before the Tribunal should be verified by

the party or accompanied by a supporting aftidav it to the effect that

content or the application Or pleadings 10 be true and correct Under

these Rul es liberly is granted to th Tri bunal to take the

cogni zance of the applica tion rais ing the lIeclion dispute though

the p leading of such applicati on is not veritl ed or supporteu by

affidav it Therefore we do not find ltIny fo rce in the contention of

the Respondent (O reject the Application on this technical ground

vvithout going into the merit of the case

233 This issue is thus decided against the Responuent and in fa vour of

Applicant

234 ISSUE NO2

2 Wh ether tbe Respondent has issued more than onc Electi on

maniresro jn vio lation of provis ions of E lec tion Rules Election

Code of Conduct or any of Advisories Directives issued by the

Returni ng Officer

23 5 Rule 42(2) o f Ihe Eleclion Rules prov ides lhal only one manifesto

or circul ar sha ll be issued by a candidate in relation to the Election

Rule 42(3 )(f) of the E lccion Rules pruvides that the candidate may

repeat in any form the manifes to or ci rcular without changing its

10

contents but he shall not issue 1110re than one manifesto or circular

Hence a clear restriction is imposed on the candidates to issue only

one manifesto or circular However candidates are given liberty to

repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form without changing

its content In other vyords the change in the contents of manifesto

or circular vould amount to second manifesto The restrictions

contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the

Returning Ollicer in Election Code or Conduct at clause No(xxi)

issued on 092pound 2014

236 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of

the Applieaot that email dated 221120 J4 vide whieh the

respondent has forwarded his manifesto to one of the voters

amounts to second circular has no hasis Admittedly it is not the

case of the applicant that the respondent has changed the contents

or his manifesto

237 lf this argument of the Applicant is accepted then all the emailsl

letLers of the contesting candidates forwarding therewith the

Election manifesto or circular would amount to second manifesto

or circular and the same will result in the violation or Election rules

by all such contesting candidmes This is not the intention of these

Election Rues The argument of the Applicant is based upon the

misunderstanding of Election Rules ltlnd devoid of ltlny merit and

hence not acceptable

238 Furthermore the lC31 In its comments specifically stated that the

Respondent filed one Manifesto witb the Returning Officer and

that no other Manifesto Circular alleged to have been isslled by

)J II

contents but he shall not issue 1110re than one manifesto or circular

Hence a clear restriction is imposed on the candidates to issue only

one manifesto or circular However candidates are given liberty to

repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form without changing

its content In other vyords the change in the contents of manifesto

or circular vould amount to second manifesto The restrictions

contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the

Returning Ollicer in Election Code or Conduct at clause No(xxi)

issued on 092pound 2014

236 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of

the Applieaot that email dated 221120 J4 vide whieh the

respondent has forwarded his manifesto to one of the voters

amounts to second circular has no hasis Admittedly it is not the

case of the applicant that the respondent has changed the contents

or his manifesto

237 lf this argument of the Applicant is accepted then all the emailsl

letLers of the contesting candidates forwarding therewith the

Election manifesto or circular would amount to second manifesto

or circular and the same will result in the violation or Election rules

by all such contesting candidmes This is not the intention of these

Election Rues The argument of the Applicant is based upon the

misunderstanding of Election Rules ltlnd devoid of ltlny merit and

hence not acceptable

238 Furthermore the lC31 In its comments specifically stated that the

Respondent filed one Manifesto witb the Returning Officer and

that no other Manifesto Circular alleged to have been isslled by

)J II

middot him is placed on record The App li cant has never challenged or

controverted the submissions of the lCS I Thus the Applic8nl has

f~ iled 10 prove that the Respondent had issued second maniresto

Th us fac t remains that the Respondenl had issued on ly one

maniteslo

239 This issue is thus decided against the Applicant and in f(lvou r of

the Respondent

2310 ISSUE NO3

3 Whether the Respondent has used the photugraph(s) of ICS1

pertaining to event programme organized by the ICSI in his

ma nifes lO in violation of provisions of Elec tion Rules Election

Code of Cond uct or any of Advisories Directives issued by the

returni ng officer

2311 The A pplicant has tiled elccdon mani fes to o rthe Respondent a long

with app licat ion In the sa it manitesto the Respondent has used his

Ivo photographs from the apparent examination of these tvvo

photographs it appears that none of these photographs pertains to

the event I programme organized by the lesl

23 12 Furthermore lhe ICSI in its CO l1lments has specifically sta ted that in

the copy of Manifes to filed by Respondent w ith the Returning

Officer it is seen that the logo of JeSl is not included in any of the

photographs shown in the Manifesto

23 13 T he original photographs fil ed by the Respondent c lear ly sho- thai

programnles cl1tended and nddresscd by him where these

photographs were taken do not pertain to the ICSI

12

23 14 We li nd that Ihe Applicant has been unable 10 prove that the

Respondent had used the photograph(s) o f ICS I pertaining 10 evenl

I programme organizell by [he ICSI in hjs manifes to ill violation of

provisions of Election Rules Election Code of Conduct or any of

Advisories Directives issued by the returning officer

23 15 Thus this issue is al so dec ided aga inst the Applicant and favour of

Respondent

24 1n light or facts and circumstances VC hold that none of the

allegations made hy rhe Applicant has any merit Accordingly the

Application is d ismissed No order as to cost

A co py of th is order be SCOI IO Ihe porlies and also 10 Ihe ICS I

A-K~ ~ (AK Chaturvedi) (R Asokan) Member Member

~ (D Bha rdwaj) Presiding Omcel

13

23 14 We li nd that Ihe Applicant has been unable 10 prove that the

Respondent had used the photograph(s) o f ICS I pertaining 10 evenl

I programme organizell by [he ICSI in hjs manifes to ill violation of

provisions of Election Rules Election Code of Conduct or any of

Advisories Directives issued by the returning officer

23 15 Thus this issue is al so dec ided aga inst the Applicant and favour of

Respondent

24 1n light or facts and circumstances VC hold that none of the

allegations made hy rhe Applicant has any merit Accordingly the

Application is d ismissed No order as to cost

A co py of th is order be SCOI IO Ihe porlies and also 10 Ihe ICS I

A-K~ ~ (AK Chaturvedi) (R Asokan) Member Member

~ (D Bha rdwaj) Presiding Omcel

13