Sharad Kumar Jhunjhunwala vs The Institute Of Company Secretaries Of India & Anr.

$~106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 28 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010515902026
+ W.P.(C) 15845/2026 & CM APPL. 74060/2026
SHARAD KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pratyush Sharma and
Ms.Soumya Kandwal,
Advocates.
versus
THE INSTITUTE OF COMPANY
SECRETARIES OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhaskar Bhardwaj and
Mr.Vakeel Ahmed, Advocates
for R1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
06.05.2024 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’) passed by the Board of
Discipline of Respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner’s complaint
against Respondent No. 2, then member of the Central Council of the
Institute, was closed at the threshold on the ground that the same was
barred under Section 36 of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980.
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner had preferred a complaint in
relation to an alleged exchange that took place between the petitioner
and Respondent No. 2 at the Western India Regional Office of the
Institute in Mumbai on 29.03.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15845/2026 Page 1 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:23:32

he was posted as Assistant Director (Academics) at the
aforementioned office of the Institute and on 29.03.2019, when
Respondent No. 2 visited the Institute as Chief Guest for attending a
valedictory session; Respondent No.2 allegedly summoned the
petitioner to his cabin and started making condescending remarks
about the petitioner’s attendance and leave. It is further the case of the
petitioner that Respondent No.2 intimidated him and also used
insulting language which was objected to by the petitioner. Thereafter,
the petitioner was suspended from service and after the conduction of
an enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 28.11.2019.
3. The petitioner has challenged his dismissal from service by way
of a separate writ petition being W.P.(C) 275/2022 and the same is
pending adjudication before this Court.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved that his complaint pertaining to
allegations of condescending remarks, intimidation, and use of
insulting language by Respondent No. 2 was not registered and the
same was dismissed at the threshold by the Board of Discipline of
Respondent No. 1. For the same, the present petition has been
preferred.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as the actions of Respondent
No. 2 cannot fall under the ‘ good faith ’ immunity encapsulated under
Section 36 of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. He submits that
Respondent No.1 erroneously refused to register the complaint of the
petitioner. He submits that the petitioner could not earlier prefer the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15845/2026 Page 2 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:23:32

writ petition as the petitioner was suffering from mental as well as
financial hardships. He consequently prays that Respondent No. 1 be
directed to register the petitioner’s complaint against Respondent
No.2.
6. I have taken note of the grievance of the petitioner.
7. At the outset, however, before this Court could be persuaded to
consider the case on its merits as the petition encounters a substantial
objection of delay and laches. Pertinently, the impugned order was
passed way back on 06.05.2024 whereas the present petition has been
filed much later on 22.10.2026 concerning an incident which itself is
over seven years old.
8. The petitioner has sought to attribute the delay to mental and
financial hardship following his dismissal from service. While this
Court has noted and is not unmindful of the justification tendered by
the petitioner, the same does not satisfactorily explain the petitioner’s
failure to challenge the impugned order for over two years and five
months.
9. It is trite that although no period of limitation is ascribed to the
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the remedy must be invoked within a reasonable time. The jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and
equitable and stale claims may be declined on the basis of delay and
laches alone. It has consistently been emphasised in a catena of
decisions that a writ petitioner guilty of delay and laches may be non-
suited on that ground itself [Ref. Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley :
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15845/2026 Page 3 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:23:32

(2024) 15 SCC 215 ]. As noted above, the petitioner has failed to
satisfactorily justify why the impugned order could not be challenged
within a reasonable time.
10. Even otherwise, if this Court were to look into the merits of the
relief sought by the petitioner, the underlying complaint only relates to
a specific workplace interaction occasioned way back in March 2019.
Reopening disciplinary proceedings at this belated stage would require
the examination of a stale, fact dependent controversy,
notwithstanding that the petitioner was aware of the closure of his
complaint in May 2024 itself.
11. The petitioner, in the aftermath of the said incident, claims to
have been dismissed from service. The said dismissal from service has
already been challenged by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C)
275/2022 and the same is pending adjudication before this Court.
12. As discernible from the pleadings itself, the immediate
grievance sought in the present petition stems from an alleged
personal exchange with Respondent No. 2 concerning the petitioner’s
attendance and leave including allegedly insulting remarks. Though it
has sought to be impressed upon this Court that the same is a
professional misconduct, the controversy finds its roots in an
interpersonal incident. The petitioner, thus, in substance, seeks to open
disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 2 with the possibility
of punitive consequences. However, the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to serve
as an instrument for settling personal scores or securing punishment at
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15845/2026 Page 4 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:23:32

the instance of the complainant that too after permitting the cause to
remain stale for a prolonged period.
13. In the light of the aforesaid, no ground to exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
14. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15845/2026 Page 5 of 5
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:23:32