Though, in the scheme of byelaws, the topmost position in the party was earlier assigned to the General Secretary but, after the demise of the then General Secretary on 05.12.2016, the party organisation went through a sea of changes and ultimately, a system of joint leadership, by Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, was established by way of amendment of byelaws on 12.09.2017. 102 of 2022, 106 of 2022 and 111 of various applications seeking interim reliefs were dealt with by an order dated 22.06.2022 whereby, the learned Single Judge of the High Court declined 3 to grant any injunction against the meeting of the General Council scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022. By way of an interim order dated 06.07.2022, this Court stayed the operation and effect of the said order dated 23.06.2022 and further to that, the next proposed meeting of the General Council slated to be held on 11.07.2022 was also permitted but while leaving it open to the parties to seek any other interim relief before the learned Single Judge dealing with the civil suits. but, the said order dated 11.07.2022 was subjected to challenge in this Court and, by an order dated 27.09.2022, this Court remanded the matter for 4 reconsideration. The position where the contesting parties stand at 5 present is that on one hand, the plaintiff-appellants challenging the order dated 02.09.2022 would submit that the said order is required to be set aside and that of the learned Single Judge dated 17.08.2022 is required to be restored, whereby interim relief was granted to them whereas, the parties opposing would support the order dated 02.09.2022 as being just and proper, requiring no interference. We have drawn the foregoing outline essentially to indicate that though there are multiple parties representing different positions before us but the matters in essence relate to the question of grant of temporary injunction in the civil suits concerning the affairs of the political party and the disputes inter se the members and the factions within the party; and then, the civil suits giving rise to the orders impugned remain pending and ought to be tried in accordance with law. Before taking up the questions in controversy, it may be noticed that in the scheme of the byelaws as originally framed and continued for a long time, the topmost position in the party was assigned to its General Secretary, who was to be directly elected by the primary cadre.
Jayalalitha was assigned the status of “Eternal General Secretary” of the party while providing that the said post of General Secretary would as such be abolished; and in place of the said post of General Secretary, two high level posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were created. At this juncture, it may also be noticed that the disputes in the civil suits leading to the interim orders in question essentially relate to the two persons who were respectively elected as Co-ordinator and Joint Co- ordinator after such amendment of the byelaws; they being the appellant of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No 15753 of 2022,. The Executive Committee’s resolution dated 01.12.2021 also provided that the said amendments would come immediately into effect but shall be approved by the General Council. On 06.12.2021, OPS and EPS jointly contested for the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator; they were elected unanimously and unopposed; the necessary certificates were issued to both of them; and the election results were notified to the Election Commission of India. It appears that on 19.06.2022, OPS sent a letter to EPS asking for adjournment of the General Council meeting scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022, which was replied in the negative by EPS. 327 of 2022 and 328 of 2022, were also filed seeking temporary injunction so as to restrain the defendants from placing any agenda in the General Council meeting to be held on 23.06.2022. This Court, upon hearing the learned respective counsel and on-going through the entire record, finds that all the parties have reported no objection for conducting the General Council meeting to be held on 23.06.2022, however, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and 3 defendant/Co-ordinator would strongly oppose to passing of any resolutions on the floor of the Meeting regarding amendment of the Rules and Regulations of the 1 Defendant/Party, mainly, abolishing the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator as it would cause great prejudice to them.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/courts-analysis-on-bona-fide-requirement-in-eviction-petitions/
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim orders/directions, except making it clear that the General Council meeting which is scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022 shall go on.
Taking note of the case of the plaintiff-appellant in the said intra-court appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court issued directions in the manner that the General Council meeting slated on 23.06.2022 could go on but no decision would be taken on any item other than 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution. on 23.06.2022
and we also permit the General Council to discuss and take any decision as per the Rules and Bye-Laws with regard to 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution and we make it clear that the respondents shall not take any decision other than the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution. Notice to the respondents 1 to 3 returnable by 19.07.2022.” What transpired after the aforesaid order dated 23.06.2022 and in the meeting of the General Council that followed, has given rise to several disputed questions and issues. On the other 13 hand, it is the case of EPS and the persons standing with him that in the said meeting dated 23.06.2022, the requisition given by 2190 members was read over and handed to the Presidium Chairman, who announced in the same meeting, in the presence of OPS and all the members of General Council, that the next General Council meeting based on the requisition, to discuss and decide on the single leadership, would be held at the same venue on 11.07.2022 at 9:15 a.m. In regard to these applications, the Division Bench of the High Court made it clear, in its order dated 04.07.2022, that the interim order 14 dated 23.06.2022 was pertaining only to the meeting scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022 and the same could not be extended for an indefinite period.
After taking note of the submissions made and the events that had taken place as also the scheduled meeting dated 11.07.2022, this Court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 and made it clear that the meeting slated for 11.07.2022 could proceed in accordance with law while also leaving it open for the learned Single Judge dealing with the said civil suits to examine the prayer for any other interim relief and/or to pass any other order, as may be required in the facts and 15 circumstances of the case. The order dated 06.07.2022 as passed by this Court reads as under: – “Permission to file Special Leave Petitions in Dy. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the subject-matter of the litigation as also the contents of the order dated 22.06.2022 as passed by the learned Single Judge on the Original Side and the order dated 23.06.2022 as passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dealing with the intra Court appeals, it is considered appropriate and hence ordered and observed as under: – a. 3, slated to be held on 11.07.2022 is concerned, the same may proceed in accordance with law and in that relation, the other aspects of any interim relief ought to be projected and presented before the learned Single Judge dealing with civil suit(s) on the Original Side. Panneerselvam filed CS No 118 of 2022 with OA No 368 of 2022 for interim relief while questioning the convening of General Council meeting on 11.07.2022. The prayer in OA No 368 of 2022 filed with the said CS No 118 of 2022 had been as follows: – “Pass an order of ad -interim injunction restraining the Respondents from convening the alleged General Council meeting on 11.07.2022 or any other date without the express authorization of both the coordinator and joint coordinator pending disposal of the suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 17 9.3. Pass an order of ad -interim injunction restraining the Respondents from convening the alleged General Council meeting of the 1 Respondent party which is scheduled to be held on 11.07.2022 based on an unsigned notice dated 01.07.2022 issued without giving 15 days notice in advance of the date of meeting and in violation of the bye-laws of the party pending disposal of the suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 5.
The aforesaid interim relief applications filed in relation to the said two subsequent suits were considered and decided by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 11.07.2022 at 09:00 a.m., a few minutes before the scheduled time of the meeting of the General Council. 118 of 2022 and 119 of 2022, could be usefully extracted from the written note filed on their behalf (while omitting paper book page numbers) as follows: “The General Council meeting was held immediately after the said Order was delivered, and various illegal resolutions were passed at the meeting for the conversion of the leadership structure of the AIADMK from a system of joint leadership under the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator to single leadership under the post of General Secretary. 118 of 2022 and 119 of 2022 questioned the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court, declining to interfere with the meeting of the given date, in this Court by way of SLP(C) Nos. The said petitions were decided on 29.07.2022 and while remanding the matter, this Court also provided that status quo as existing on the date shall be maintained by the parties until hearing of the matter by the High Court but, while making it clear that status quo order was not to be construed as any expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. These petitions were listed before this Court on 06.07.2022, when this Court passed certain directions, inter alia, relating to the meeting of the General Council of respondent no. Therefore, having regard to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court cannot take a contrary decision by interpreting the same as technically projected by the learned Senior counsel for the applicants, stating that if the applicants make out a prima facie case that the General Council meeting is not in accordance with law, this Court can very well interfere and override the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pass orders injuncting the respondents/defendants from convening the meeting.
This Court is unable to fortify the contention put forth by the learned Senior counsel for the applicants rather amazed, for more than one reason, firstly, in the order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the learned single Judge can decide the issue regarding the convening of the General Council meeting on 11.07.2022 without bearing in mind the direction already given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; secondly, no other interim relief has been sought for before this Court by the applicants apart from not to convene the meeting, to examine and pass necessary orders by this Court; thirdly, since the order has been passed permitting the respondents/defendants to convene the meeting, if at all, the same is not proceeded in accordance with law as projected by the learned Senior counsel for the applicants, being custodian of the order, it is for the Hon’ble Supreme Court to consider this aspect of the matter and not by this Court; fourthly, all the grounds which were vehemently raised before this Court on behalf of the applicants regarding the subject meeting is not going to be proceeded in accordance with law, were in fact, very well available at the time of passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court fails to understand as to why the From the above, it is clear that the learned single judge has taken the view that, by virtue of the earlier order dated 06.07.2022 passed by this Court, he is unable to properly adjudicate the matters. It is further clarified that the status-quo order being granted today, shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. The learned Single Judge also observed that the principle of indoor management would apply only in respect of deliberations in the meeting convened in accordance with byelaws and if the process of convening the meeting itself was faulty and contrary to law, there was no bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to approach the Civil Court. Rule-20(A)(vii) of the Party Constitution is a provision which deals with exigencies when the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co- ordinator becomes vacant before the expiry of the nominated Central Executive Committee office bearers tenure.
The Sub-Rule(viii) of Rule 20-A vest with the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator, the powers and responsibility to convene the Executive Committee and General Council Meeting, to implement policies and programmes of a Party and to conduct Elections and bye-Elections for the party organ. The balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents/defendants, who want to run the party 24 democratically and face the primary members to be elected as the Party General Secretary. The balance of convenience in the given contest must be tested from the arm chair of the Primary Members who are the foundation of the Party and not from the Leaders point of view. While so, how suddenly between 20.06.2022 and 01.07.2022, the Party with more than 1 12 crores of cadre strength decided for change the existing dispensation through 2500 old General Council Members and whether, the views of abext ( sic ) 2500 members really reflects the view of 112 crores primary members are questions need to be examined and be tested. From the typed set of documents, this Court take notice 25 of the fact that due to the dispute between these two Leaders, in the local body election held recently, the party men at the grass root those who contested the election were not able to get the recognised Election Symbol ‘two leaves’. (ii) There shall be no Executive Council meeting or General Council meeting without joint consent of the Co- ordinator Thiru.O.Panneerselvam and Joint Co-ordinator Thiru. (iv) If a proper representation from not less than 1/5 members of the total members of the General Council is received, the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator shall not refuse to convene the General Council meeting. These three intra-court appeals have been considered and allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its impugned order dated 02.09.2022. The appellant and the 1 respondent were also very much present in the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022. If one-fifth of the members of the General Council request the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator to 27 convene the Special Meeting of the General Council, the Co- ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator should do so within 30 days of the receipt of such a requisition.
For a requisitioner’s meeting of the General Council, Rule 19(vii) does not provide for any notice unlike the regular General Council Meeting, which requires 15 days of advance notice. When the notice for General Council Meeting on 12.09.2017 was issued by the Headquarters office Bearers on 28.08.2017, the announcement made at the floor of the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022 for convening Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 can be construed as a proper notice. Had the Framers of the Bye-Laws thought of giving 15 days notice even for the convening of the Special General Council 28 Meeting at the request of 1/5 of the General Council members, they would have incorporated giving 15 days notice at the end of the second part of Rule 19(vii). Since the Special General Council Meeting are being convened at the request of the members of the General Council, there will not be any necessity for giving another notice to the members again for convening the Special General Council Meeting.
Though Rule 19(vii) says that the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co- Ordinator should convene the Special General Council Meeting within 30 days from the date of receipt of the requisition by its 1/5 General Council members, since the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co- Ordinator are at loggerheads, they were not in a position to convene the Special General Council Meeting jointly. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court reported in (1997) 3 CTC 229 (cited supra) cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. When the Interim General Secretary could not act in the year 2017, the Office Bearers stepped in to convene the meeting on 12.09.2018 ( sic ) based on a requisition received. The supremacy of the General Council is because it is elected ultimately by the Primary Members in terms of Rules 6 to 14 of the Bye-Laws. The requisition given at the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022 was announced at the floor of the meeting, informing the members that a General Council Meeting would be convened on 11.07.2022.
The amendments to the Bye-Laws can happen only at the General Council under Rule 43 of the Bye-Laws. So far as the Meeting of the General Council of the respondent No 3, slated to be held on 11.07.2022 is concerned, the same may proceed in accordance with law and in that relation, the other aspects of any interim relief ought to be projected and presented before the learned Single Judge dealing with civil suit(s) on the Original Side….” The appellant-Co-Ordinator sent a letter dated 28.06.2022 to the Election Commission of India stating that the posts of Co- Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator had lapsed for the reason that the election in the Executive Council Meeting dated 01.12.2021 was not ratified in the General Council Meeting held on 23.06.2022. In these circumstances, the General Council Meeting called for by the Presidium Chairman on 23.06.2022 to convene the Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 is proper.
Thereafter, the meeting on 11.07.2022 was attended by 2460 members and 2539 members have filed affidavits before the Election Commission of India affirming their support to the resolution passed at the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022. When none of the 2190 members, who have signed the requisition letter to convene the Special General Council Meeting, disputed their signature or contents of the document, a third party to the said letter cannot question the same. The members of the General Council are representing the Primary Members of the Party and when the majority of the members of the General Council have given requisition for convening the Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 and also supported the Resolutions on 23.06.2022 and 11.07.2022, the balance of convenience cannot be held in favour of the 1 respondent. Thus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of interim injunction pending the suit. As per Rule 20A(ix), the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator are empowered to take such actions as he may deem fit on important political events, policies and programmes of urgent nature which cannot delay and await the meeting of either Executive Committee or General Council of the Party. When the Presidium Chairman had announced the date of next Special General Council Meeting based on the requisition made by 2190 members of the General Council on 23.06.2022 the 1 respondent-plaintiff should have challenged the decision taken on 23.06.2022 to convene a Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022. So far as the direction to the appellant and the 1 respondent (in O.S.A.No.227 of 2022) to conduct the Executive Council Meeting or General Council Meeting jointly is not workable, as the appellant and the 1 respondent have not been able to act together and there has been a deadlock, which has resulted in the impossibility to perform the functions, which is the very premise based on which the General Council of the Party was held on 12.09.2017, wherein the posts of Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator were created and the appellant and the 1 respondent came to be elected to the said posts. Though there is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727 (cited supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1 respondent, since the facts and circumstances of the present case differs, the said ratio is not applicable to the present case.
These two petitions were entertained by this Court on 30.09.2022 and on that date, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of EPS stated at the Bar that until hearing of these matters, there shall not be any election of the General Secretary. In the above backdrop, the appeals preferred in challenge to the said order dated 02.09.2022 as also the previous order dated 23.06.2022, as passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, have been taken up by this Court for analogous hearing. We have heard the detailed and elaborate submissions of the learned senior counsel Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar appearing for the respective appellants on one hand and those of the learned senior counsel Mr. 15705-15706 of 2022 and thereafter, this Court passed an order on 03.02.2023 for the limited purpose of making arrangements for the party, in relation to the upcoming bye-election of 98-Erode (East) Assembly Constituency. Learned senior counsel for the appellants have submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court could not have interfered with the order dated 17.08.2022 as passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court without recording a finding to the effect that the order as passed was 38 arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to the settled principles of law regulating grant of injunctions. Therefore, the Presidium Chairman neither had the power to make any announcement on 23.06.2022 about convening of the General Council meeting on 11.07.2022 nor he could have convened any such meeting. Thirunavukkarasu (supra), that the scheme of byelaws does not envisage the requisitionists to convene the General Council meeting; and if the General Secretary does not act on the requisition with sufficient dispatch, the only option in such a scenario is to approach the Court. Reliance has been placed on one passage in the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. : (2000) 9 SCC 572 and on another decision of this Court in Surya Nath Singh and Ors.
It has also been argued that if the interim injunction is not granted as prayed for, irreparable injury would be caused to the appellant OPS and the persons on his side or similarly situated, who have been purportedly expelled as primary members of the party as a consequence of the resolutions passed in the General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022. The contra contentions urged on behalf of the respondents in support of the said order dated 02.09.2022 could also be usefully summarised as follows: 18.1. : (2006) 5 SCC 282 and Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited v. The General Council, therefore, has unfettered powers to amend, add or delete the byelaws; including the powers that are not specifically placed in the byelaws; and it is for this supremacy that as a condition of membership into the party, one has to abide by the decision of the General Council. It has been contended, particularly with reference to Rule 19(vii) of the byelaws, that the notice sent on 01.07.2022 would qualify to be a proper notice for, the byelaws only speak about notice of the meeting and not notice to the members; the byelaws do not require service of written notice for convening of meeting; the dic tionary meaning of the word ‘notice’ is intimation and does not necessarily mean notice in writing; and 15 days ’ notice is to be given only for the regular meeting of the General Council and not for the special meeting. Thirunavukkarasu (supra) is of no application because therein an expelled member of AIADMK attempted to convene a General Council meeting, parallel to the meeting called by the then General Secretary whereas, in the present case no parallel meeting of General Council has been convened by anyone. It has been further submitted that the General Council is not superior to the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator of the party as pursuant to the amendments made to the byelaws on 01.12.2021, the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator are to be elected directly through vote by an electorate consisting of entire primary membership of the party. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that if it be assumed that the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator lapsed because of non-ratification of the amendments of 01.12.2021 by the General Council, the elections of other office-bearers held after the amendments of 01.12.2021 would also stand annulled and in any case, 45 even according to Rule 20-A(vii) of the byelaws, the other office-bearers as mentioned therein do not have the power to convene the General Council meeting. In other words, the real question to be determined in these appeals against the order dated 02.09.2022 would only be as regards the prayer for temporary injunction against convening of the meeting dated 11.07.2022. While dealing with the relevant contentions, we may usefully take note of a few decisions cited in these appeals so as to define the parameters and contours of the discussion forthcoming.
On facts, the learned single judge having held that the letter of requisition was not posted, has also held that even otherwise the plaintiff had convened the meeting of the general council as per Rule 19(viii). In our view it is not an authority for the proposition that in case the General Secretary fails to convene the meeting under Rule 19(viii), the requisitioning members can 47 convene a meeting. Rule 19(viii) has made a specific provision to preside over the general council meeting, that in the absence of Chairman, one of the members of the general council elected by the body shall preside over the meeting.
The argument of the learned senior counsel for the defendant is that Rule 19(viii) may be harmoniously construed so as to serve the purpose of the rule; if the general secretary does not convene the meeting, the requisitioning members cannot be made helpless, and in the normal course, having given the requisition, they were entitled to have a meeting, and if not convened by the general secretary within the given time, they could themselves convene such a meeting. Rule 19(vii) says that meeting of the general council shall be held once in six months by giving 15 days notice in advance of the date of the meeting. Under the circumstances when the requisition was not at all received by the plaintiff to convene a general council meeting, the defendant has been expelled from the primary membership of the party on 19.5.1997 itself and who had no locus-standi to convene a meeting, and the general secretary alone was competent to convene a meeting, prima-facie, we have no hesitation to agree with the finding of the learned single Judge that the action of the defendant in convening of the meeting of the general council which was held on 3.6.1997 was unauthorised and against the rules of the party.” 2. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated “…is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in 49 damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion.
The case of State of Karnataka (supra) essentially related to a suit involving inter-State water disputes and in the referred passage, it was 50 indicated that even when balance of convenience or inconvenience is another requirement but no fixed rules or notions ought to be had in the matter of grant of injunction; and the relief would depend on facts and circumstances of each case with justice of the situation being the guiding factor, in the following terms: – “168. In Surya Nath Singh (supra), this Court held that though the grant of injunction was a matter of discretion, the same must be on settled principles of law to advance the cause of justice; and it is subject to correction by the Appellate Court. In cases where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizen’s faith in the impartiality of public administration, a court may well be justified in granting interim relief against public authority. Order 39 Rule 1(c) provides that temporary injunction may be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing…
The exercise thereof is subject to the court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/defendant; (2) the court’s interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. Equally the grant or refusal of the relief of declaration and injunction under the provision of that Act is discretionary. Before granting or refusing to grant relief of declaration or injunction or both the court must weigh pros and cons in each case, consider the facts and circumstances in their proper perspective and exercise discretion with circumspection to further the ends of justice. This Court also observed that this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136, would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion in the matter of grant of temporary injunction by the High Court and the trial court and substitute its own discretion therefor, except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely or where the order of the Court under scrutiny ignores settled principles of law. Exercise of discretion by granting a temporary injunction when there is “no material”, or refusing to grant a temporary injunction by ignoring the relevant documents produced, are instances of action which are termed as arbitrary, capricious or perverse. Before pronouncing upon the tenability or otherwise of the appellant’s prayer for restraining the respondents from using the word “Skyline” for the Institute of Engineering and Technology established by them, we consider it necessary to observe that as the suit filed by the appellant is pending trial and issues raised by the parties are yet to be decided, the High Court rightly considered and decided the appellant’s prayer for temporary injunction only on the basis of the undisputed facts and the material placed before the learned Single Judge and unless this Court comes to the conclusion that the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing to entertain the appellant’s prayer for temporary injunction is vitiated by an error apparent or perversity and manifest injustice has been done to it, there will be no warrant for exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution.
In the case of Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti (supra), this Court held that formality of notice cannot invalidate the action when the parties had intimation of the event; and that the term notice does not necessarily mean communication in writing. The communication of the information that an award has been filed is sufficient compliance with the requirements of sub-section, (2) of Section 14 with respect to the giving of the notice to the parties concerned about the filing of the award. We see no ground to construe the expression “date of service of notice” in column 3 of Article 158 of the Limitation Act to mean only a notice in writing served in a formal manner. Moreover, to construe the expression as meaning only a written notice served formally on the party to be affected, will leave the door open to that party, eventhough with full knowledge of the filing of the award he has taken part in the subsequent proceedings, to challenge the decree based upon the award at any time upon the ground that for want of a proper notice his right to object to the filing of the award had not even accrued. (2) The lodge is bound to act strictly according to the rules whether a particular rule is mandatory or directory falls to be decided in each case, having regard to the well settled rules of construction in that regard. 57
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-evidence-and-courts-ruling/
The other elements i.e., balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury, are not of empty formality and carry their own relevance; and while exercising its discretion in the matter of interim relief and adopting a particular course, the Court needs to weigh the risk of injustice, if ultimately the decision of main matter runs counter to the course being adopted at the time of granting or refusing the interim relief.
But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction mandatory shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Another simple but pertinent question would have been concerning the element of balance of convenience; and a simple answer to the same would have further shown that the inconvenience which the importers were going to suffer because of the notifications in question was far lesser than the inconvenience which the appellants were going to suffer (with ultimate impact on national interest) in case operation of the notifications was stayed and thereby, the markets of India were allowed to be flooded with excessive quantity of the said imported peas/pulses.
If any member of the party resorts to any Court proceedings against the Party Co-Ordinator’s and joint co-ordinator’s decision he/she shall cease to be a primary member of the party. RULE-19: GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE CENTRAL ORGANISATION i) The General Council of the AIADMK shall consist of the Chairman, Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, Deputy Co- ordinators, Treasurer, Headquarters Secretaries of the Party, the members of the Central Executive Committee, the members of the General Council elected from the Districts and other States, the Members of the Audit Committee, Property Protection Committee, and the Parliamentary Board. In respect of other, State including Pondicherry, the number of the 60 General Council members will be determined by the Co- ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator with reference to the total number of members registered in the respective State Kazhagams. If one-fifth of the members of the General Council request the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator to convene the Special Meeting of the General Council, the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator should do so within 30 days of the receipt of such a requisition. RULE 20-A: CO-ORDINATOR AND JOINT CO-ORDINATOR i)
The Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator shall be primary members of the party for a continuous period of five years.
vii) The members of the Central Executive Committee, Treasurer and the Headquarters Secretaries nominated by the Co- Ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator will hold the office during the tenure of the office of the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. The Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator will preside over the Party conferences take all kinds of disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Party rules against the Party units and its office bearers who violate the Party rules, regulations or act against the Party interest, party discipline, policies and programmes, including immediate suspension of any Party unit or office bearer. ix)
The Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator are empowered to take such actions as he may deem fit on important political events, policies and programmes of urgent nature which cannot brook delay/and await the meeting of either Executive Committee or General Council of the Party. xi) The Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator are vested with powers to authorize the Treasure of the Party to operate on his behalf the Bank Accounts namely to deposit or to withdraw funds, and also in respect of duties mentioned in sub-rule (x) of this Rule.
63 ii) The Chairman will preside over and conduct the proceedings of the Central Executive Committee and the General Council Meetings. *** *** *** RULE-42: TENURE If the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator feels that there are genuine reasons according to changing situations, the Co- ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator is vested with the power to exempt from the above mentioned Rules and Regulations. Rule 43 – Amendments The General Council will have powers to frame, amend or delete any of the Rules of the Party Constitution. Rule 45 – Authorisation to Coordinator and Joint Coordinator The Co-ordinator and Joint Co- ordinator are fully authorized to relax or make alterations to any of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations of the Party. 102 of 2022, 106 of 2022 and 111 of 2022, the prayers for interim injunction against holding of the meeting dated 23.06.2022 were declined by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by an order dated 22.06.2022 with reference to the settled principles of law that in matter of internal issues of an association/party, the Courts normally do not interfere while leaving it open to the association/party and its members to pass the necessary resolutions and to frame a particular byelaw, rule or regulation for better administration of the party; and that it were a matter well within their collective wisdom and the Court cannot insist upon the members to act in a particular manner for, it was for the General Council and its members to decide and pass resolutions and the Court cannot interfere with the process of conducting the General Council meeting.
On 06.07.2022, while examining the challenge to the said order dated 23.06.2022 as passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, this Court took note of the events that had taken place as also the fact that next meeting of the General Council was scheduled to be held on 11.07.2022 and hence, while issuing notice, stayed the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 and made it clear that the meeting slated for 11.07.2022 could proceed in accordance with law while also leaving it open for the learned Single Judge dealing with the civil suits to examine the prayer for any other interim relief and/or to pass any other order, as may be required on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/validity-of-tamil-nadu-land-acquisition-acts/
The said meeting dated 11.07.2022 was, accordingly, held at the scheduled time and various resolutions were adopted therein but, the said order dated 11.07.2022 as passed by the learned Single Judge was found to have been passed on wrong notion about the purport of the order of this Court dated 67 06.07.2022 and hence, by an order dated 27.09.2022, this Court remanded the matter for reconsideration. It is apparent from a close look at the order dated 17.08.2022 that grant of temporary injunction in these matters by the learned Single Judge was premised essentially on three factors: first and the foremost being that as per the byelaws of the party, the General Council meeting could have been convened only by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator and they having not done so, the meeting dated 11.07.2022 was wholly unauthorised. Thirdly, the learned Single Judge was of the view that when OPS and EPS had successfully functioned jointly as Co- ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, how the party, with more than 1.5 crore cadre strength, suddenly decided to change the existing dispensation. The Division Bench of the High Court, after examining the record and particularly Rule 19(vii) in its Tamil and English versions, took note of its frame whereby the requirement of 15 days ’ notice 69 appears to be referable to the regular meeting of the General Council to be convened once in a year or whenever considered necessary but not in relation to the meeting requisitioned by 1/5 members of the General Council where the only requirement is for the Co-ordinator and Joint Co- ordinator to convene the meeting within 30 days of receipt of the requisition.
Yet further, the Division Bench took note of the stance of the Joint Co-ordinator – EPS – who had sent a communication to the Election Commission of India stating that the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co- ordinator had lapsed for the reason that the election in the Executive Committee meeting dated 01.12.2021 was not ratified in the General Council meeting held on 23.06.2022. The Division Bench went on to observe that even if the resolutions passed on 23.06.2022 and on 11.07.2022 were found to be illegal or against the byelaws, it was always open to 1/5 members of the General Council to convene a special meeting and reverse the resolutions passed in these two meetings but no such requisition was given by 1/5 of the General Council members and this factor operated against the claim of irreparable injury. Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that the Division Bench of the High Court, while passing the order dated 02.09.2022, has amply and clearly pointed out as to how the order of temporary injunction as passed by the learned Single Judge was against the sound judicial principles and the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge was suffering from arbitrariness as also perversity. The facts of the case make it abundantly clear that so far as convening of the meeting dated 23.06.2022 is concerned, the same had never been in doubt or in any dispute. If 2190 members out of these 2665 gave a requisition on 23.06.2022 for convening the General Council meeting and the Presidium Chairman announced the date of this requisitioned meeting as 11.07.2022, in the given set of facts and circumstances, such announcement, at least at the present stage, cannot be dubbed as wholly redundant. The learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 17.08.2022 seems to have fallen in serious error and said order was clearly suffering from perversity when convening of the meeting dated 11.07.2022 was taken as an act unauthorised. The considerations of the learned Single Judge as regards the question of prima facie case had been suffering from basic flaws, as noticed above; and interference by the Division Bench was but warranted looking to the subject-matter of the litigation and its implications. The questions of balance of convenience and irreparable injury in relation to the applications under consideration could not have been examined with reference to the consequences or fallout of the meeting dated 11.07.2022. 75
Case Title: THIRU K. PALANISWAMY Vs. M. SHANMUGAM (2023 INSC 156)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001392-001392 / 2023
