SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 1017

2010 (14) SCC 114
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA
Sudha
Versus
President, Adv.Assn.Chennai & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10267 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16840/2010)
Decided on : 22-10-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis Mohammad, L. K. Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R. Balasubramaniom, Sr. Advocate, G. Mohan Krishnan, B. Karunakaran, S. Gowathaman, Neeraj Shekhar, Ibrar Mohammed Abdullah, R. Chandrachud, R. Anand Padmanaban, Prithviraj B. N., Aristotal Flato, A. Riaz, Shashi Bushan Kumar, Jayanth Muth Raj, R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, Velmurugan, C.K. Sasi, Nishe Rajan Shonker, Advocates.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Judicial review – Advocate Association – Extraordinary meeting to consider resolution for amending byelaws – Notices served to members even I their chambers – Published in two daily newspapers – Meeting held in a large hall to accommodate all attending members – Resolution passed by show of hands – Thereafter placed before GBM – Entire proceeding supervised by Teller committee constituted by Court – No infirmity. (Para 14)

       (b) Administration of Justice – Judicial review – Advocate Association – Extraordinary meeting to consider resolution for amending byelaws – Freedom to express views – Members desirous to speak at the meeting requested to give their names before the meeting – Only 30 members giving their names desiring to speak at meeting – All were given time and they addressed the meeting – Manner adopted not arbitrary. (Para 15)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Supreme Court not expected to interfere in internal matters of Advocate Associations – Advocates understand what is in their interest – Not desirable for the Court to go on giving directions to convene meetings of the Association, neither practical nor expected. (Para 16)

       (d) Advocate Association Bye laws – Amendments – Meant to ensure proper functioning of the Association – Not arbitrary. (Para 17, 18)

       Facts of the case:

       The instant appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by which the High Court has issued various directions regarding the management of the Madras High Court Advocates’ Association and had approved the amended bye-laws of the Association.

       Finding of the Court:

       The Resolution passed on September 7, 2010 is perfectly legal and, therefore, the same is hereby upheld.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.

Judgment :

Leave Granted

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 16, 2010 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Application No. 2739 of 2009 filed in Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 and Civil Suit No. 336 of 2005 by which the High Court has issued various directions regarding the management of the Madras High Court Advocates' Association (`The Association', for short) and had approved the amended bye-laws of the Association.

3. In order to understand the controversy raised in the appeal, it would be necessary to notice certain facts emerging from the record of the case.

In the year 1879, the Association was established. On March 16, 1972 the Association was incorporated as a Society and also as a charitable trust under the provisions of Registration of Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1860.

Two learned Advocates who are Members of the Association have filed Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 seeking removal of the Trusteeship of defendant Nos. 1 and 3 who are the President and Secretary respectively of the Association and to direct them to submit report of accounts. They have also prayed to frame a permanent scheme for the election and management of the Trust. Pending the said suit, four other learned Advocates of the Association have filed Civil Suit No.336 of 2005 to declare that the action of the defendant No.4 of the said suit i.e. Secretary of the Association in notifying programme for election of the office bearers of the Association and the resolution dated March 24, 2005 of the General Body of the Association appointing the defendant Nos.17 to 22 of the said suit, as members of the Election Committee to conduct the election are bad in law and to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 to 16 as well as 17 to 22 from taking any action pursuant to the declaration of the election programme.

The Secretary of the Association has filed Civil Suit No.337 of 2005 to restrain the defendants named therein from interfering with his functioning as Secretary till expiration of his tenure i.e. till April, 2006.

4. It may be stated that the above numbered suits have been instituted in the High Court on its original jurisdiction and are pending disposal. The record indicates that in view of the pendency of above numbered suits every year the learned Advocates used to file different applications in the suits seeking direction of the High Court for holding elections of the office bearers of the Association and appropriate directions were given by the High Court from time to time. One learned advocate Mr. Thiru R. Karuppan filed an application bearing No.3101 of 2007 in Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 seeking his impleadment in the suit and to restrain the members of the Election Committee from scrutinizing applications received from the members of the Association for contesting election of office bearers of the Association and from conducting the election. It was also prayed therein to appoint tellers committee to conduct elections of the association. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, by an order dated April 17, 2007, appointed a Tellers Committee consisting of 1) Thiru R. Thyagarajan, Senior Advocate, 2) Thiru N.G.R. Prasad, Advocate 3) Thiru C. Selvaraju, Senior Advocate 4) Thiru K.M. Ramesh, Advocate and 5) Thiru Ashok Menon, Advocate to complete the entire election process for the year 2007. Again for the year 2008-09, the High Court was approached by the learned Advocates and a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed the following order on March 17, 2008 :-

"It is represented by Mr. G. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel that the Committee was appointed by the Office Bearers of the High Court Association to give recommendation for amending the bye-laws and that the said Committee is going to file a draft amendment in the bye-laws before the Association by 25.3.2008. The learned President of the said Association would represent that thereafter they will convene a Gene



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top