Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVARAJ PATIL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN
S. Thirunavukkarasu and another
Versus
J. Jayalalitha and another
Original Side Appeals Nos.179 to 186 of 1997
Decided On : 27-08-1997
The Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable, the meeting of the general council convened by the defendant was unauthorized and invalid, and the order of the learned single Judge granting interim injunction did not call for interference.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as the General Secretary of the All India Anna D.M.K. party (A.I.A.D.M.K. party), filed a suit for declaration that the action taken by the defendant for convening and holding the General Council meeting of the party was illegal and void, and for grant of a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from convening, calling or holding the meeting of the general council of the party. The defendant, who was expelled from the party, issued a statement that he had called for the general council meeting of the party to be held on a certain date. The plaintiff filed an application for an order of injunction to restrain the defendant from convening and holding the meeting. The learned single Judge granted an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant filed an appeal against the order. The impleading applicants, who were members of the Rajya Sabha and Legislative Assembly, who support the case of the defendant, filed appeals seeking their impleadment as necessary parties. The plaintiff filed a common counter affidavit to the impleading applications, contending that they are neither proper nor necessary parties.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable, the meeting of the general council convened by the defendant was unauthorized and invalid, and the order of the learned single Judge granting interim injunction did not call for interference. The Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to hold the post of General Secretary unless she was legally removed or the term of office expired, and that membership in the party conferred certain rights which could not be denied except in accordance with the rules of the party. The Court also found that the defendant had been expelled from the party and had no authority to convene the meeting of the general council. The Court further found that the impleading applicants were proper parties to the suit and should be impleaded as additional defendants.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable; 2. Whether the meeting of the general council convened by the defendant was authorized and valid; 3. Whether the order of the learned single Judge granting interim injunction called for interference.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable as it was of a civil nature and did not relate to the disposal and administration of property of the party. The Court also held that the meeting of the general council convened by the defendant was unauthorized and invalid as the defendant had been expelled from the party and had no authority to convene the meeting. The Court further held that the order of the learned single Judge granting interim injunction did not call for interference as the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in favour of granting injunction, and irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction was refused.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and allowed the appeals filed by the impleading applicants. The Court also directed that the impleading applicants be impleaded as additional defendants in the suit.
Shivaraj Patil, J.
1. The defendant in C.S.No.322 of 1997 has filed O.S.A.No.179 of 1997 aggrieved by the order dated 16. 1997 made by the learned single Judge in Application No.356 of 1997 in the said suit C.S.No. 322of 1997, under which an order of injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Appeals, O.S.A.Nos.180 to 183, 185 and 186of 1997 are filed by the applicants who prayed to add them as additional defendants in the said suit C.S.No.322 of 1997 aggrieved by the order rejecting their applications by the learned single Judge by the very common order dated 16. 1997.
2. O.S.A.No.184 of 1997 is filed by the Applicants in O.A.No.1917 of 1997. They had filed the said application to direct the Registry to place all the papers before the Honourable Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders during the course of hearing of the case by the learned single judge. It is stated in ground No.l of the appeal memorandum that no order was passed and that Application No.1917 of 1997 had become infructuous. But as a matter of fact the said Application No. 1917 of 1997 was dismissed by the learned single Judge as not pressed as recorded in paragraph 14 of the order under appeal. In view of the order passed by the learned single Judge in O.A.No.356 of 1997 in C.S.No.322 of 1997 and other applications filed seeking to implead as additional defendants in the said suit, nothing more is required to be done in this appeal, for the reasons more than one, viz., firstly that application No.1917 of 1997 was dismissed on 16. 1997 as not pressed; secondly the application No.1917 of 1997 even otherwise had become infructuous in view of the order passed by the learned single Judge in O.A.No.356 of 1997; and lastly when the very order passed by the learned single judge in O.A.No.356 of 1997 is under challenge in O.S.A.No.179 of 1997, this O.S.A.No.184 of 1997 is of no consequence. Hence this O.S.A.No.184 of 1997 is dismissed.
3. For convenience, we will refer to the parties in this order as they were ranked and referred to in C.S.No.322 of 1997. As already stated above, the defendant in the suit is the appellant in O.S.A.No.179 of 1997. The impleading applicants in the said suit have filed appeals O.S.As.No.180 to 183, 185 and 186 of 1997.
4. Since the learned single Judge, in his order under appeals, has set out the facts leading to the passing of the impugned order in sufficient details and particulars succinctly, we do not think it necessary or desirable to state them again in detail. However, we shall state them briefly, to the extent they are needed, for the purpose of disposal of these appeals.
5. The plaintiff has filed the suit C.S.No.322 of 1997 for declaration that the action taken by the defendant for convening and holding the General Council meeting of the All India A.D.M.K. party to be held on 6. 1997 or on any other date is illegal and void; for declaration that any decision taken or resolution passed at the purported general council meeting, convened and held if any by the defendant, to be illegal and void; and for grant of a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant or any person or persons claiming under him from convening, calling or holding of the meeting of the general council of the A.I.A.D.M.K. party to be held on 6. 1997 or on any other day.
6. The plaintiff had averred in the plaint that she is a member, and General Secretary of the All India Anna D.M.K. party (for short, A.I.A.D.M.K. party). She had been elected as General Secretary of the A.I.A.D.M.K. party after the death of Puratchi Thalaivar M.G. Ramachandran — the founder of the party. She had been elected as General Secretary of the party on 26. 1993 as per the rules of the party and she is continuing to hold the said post as on date. The said party won the general elections in 1991 and formed the Government. She was the Chief Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu from 1991 to 1996. The defendant was also a member of the party.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
