The General Body Meetings were not validly constituted, and any resolutions passed thereunder were non est and had no force in the eye of law. The dissolution of the Executive Council by the General Body was held to be ultra vires the Act, and the Executive Council was deemed to be in existence.

1. This application is to vacate the order of injunction dated 3.4.2001, passed in O.A.No.291 of 2001.

2. The suit in C.S.No.249 of 2001 has been filed for a declaration that the meeting conducted by the second defendant on 19.3.2001 and 27.3.2001, purporting to be the General Body Meeting of the Madras Advocates’ Association, Chennai, as invalid and nonest in law and the resolutions passed therein are null and void and not binding on the members of the association; for a declaration that the Election Notification dated 28.3.2001 issued by the respondent 3 to 5 claiming themselves to be Election Officers pursuant to the resolution dated 27.3.2001, as null and void; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, particularly, the second defendant from in any way interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff as Secretary and Election Officer of the Advocates’ Association.

3. (a) In the suit, Original Application No.291 of 2001 has been filed for injunction, in the affidavit filed along with the Judge’s Summons, it is stated that the Advocates’ Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act, under Registration No.20 of 1968; The affairs of the Association are governed by its bye-laws. As per the bye-laws, the Governing Body (Executive Committee) consists of a President, two Secretaries, one Librarian and eleven Members. They are elected by ballot at the Annual General Body Meeting in an election process. The tenure of the office of the President, Librarian and Council Members are ‘until the next election’. The tenure of office of Secretaries is two years; The secretaries retire and continue by rotation and such continuity is maintained in order to ensure that there is no vacuum in the administration of the affairs of the association. There is no provision for terminating the tenure of any of the elected office bearers or the council members before their term actually ends. By-law 25 envisages the conduct of elections by the Secretaries; By-Laws also provide for the General Body Meeting-both ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’. It is only for the council to call for other meeting in terms of the bye-laws. The last election was held on 19.4.2000. Mr.C.T. Mohan, the then continuing Secretary conducted the election as Election Officer and the petitioner was elected as Secretary and the second respondent was elected as President. The petitioner was elected for two years. The tenure of Mr.C.T. Mohan, the other Secretary would come to an end in the next election. If that be so, in accordance with the Rules, 128 members of the Association gave requisition on 7.7.2000 for convening a General Body Meeting. But General Body was not convened. Hence he gave a letter of protest on 18.8.2000 to the second respondent and other officers expressing the unpleasantness, that there was no purpose in merely attending the meeting unless he was permitted to function freely. But, he continued to function as the secretary in all matters concerning the institution. But, he declined to sign the cheques in the absence of proper resolutions. The second respondent unanimously assumed the powers to sign the cheques for expenses along with other Secretary; the petitioner did not abandon his rights.

(b) In or about, December, 2000, the second respondent took up the issue of controversy over the age of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India; The second respondent appeared as counsel for Mr. S.K. Sundaram, Advocate; He also filed a writ of quo warranto against the Chief Justice of India before the Supreme Court; Majority of the members of the association felt that they could not participate in the so called ‘General Body Meetings’ held by the second respondent in the matter of issue of age of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India; The members felt that the very participation in such matters would amount to serious contempt of court; But the second respondent went on to hold meetings as if they were legal General Body Meeting in which he was