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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
B. Ramkumar Adityan & Another - Appellant
Versus
All India Anna Dravida Munne - Respondent
A. No. 1204 of 2022 in C.S.DR. No. 119663 of 2021
Decided On : 26-04-2022

The Court found that the applicants had common interest and were entitled to get leave for filing the suit.

Headnote:

Representative Suit - Civil Procedure Code - Order 1 Rule 8 - Application filed to grant leave to sue against the defendants in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC representing the interest of justice and equity in the civil suit.

Fact of the Case:

Application filed to grant leave to sue against the defendants in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC representing the interest of justice and equity in the civil suit.

Finding of the Court:

Applicants sought to file the Suit on behalf of the members of the political party to ensure adherence to the original constitution, while respondents argued that the Suit is not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the applicants had common interest and were entitled to get leave for filing the suit.

Result: Application allowed, and the suit to be taken on file if in order.

JUDGMENT

1. This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to grant leave to sue against the defendants in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC representing the interest of justice and equity in the above mentioned civil suit.

2. The applicants are the Plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the Suit.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:-

The first respondent/first defendant is recognized as a State Political Party by the Election Commission of India in the State of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. The second respondent is the Coordinator of the party and the third respondent is the Joint Coordinator of the party. The applicants are the primary members of the Party. The first respondent/first defendant has its own constitution called the Rules and Regulations as per Guidelines prescribed by the Election Commission of India. The General Secretary is responsible for entire administration and function of the party and as per Rule 19(viii), the General Secretary will be the Supreme Authority to frame policies and programmes of the party and the decision of the General Council is final and binding on all the members of the Party. As per Rule 20 of the Rules, the General Secretary shall be elected by the primary members of the party units of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Andaman Islands. After the demise of former General Secretary Dr.J.Jayalalithaa, on 05.12.2016, as per Rule 20(ii) of the original Constitution, Smt.V.K.Sasikala was appointed as interim General Secretary by the Emergency General Council on 29.12.2016.

4. Thereafter, the second respondent/second defendant claimed himself having majority support in party cadres as against Smt.V.K.Sasikala. Subsequently, the second respondent/second defendant and then Presidium Chairman filed a petition in Dispute Case No.2 of 2017, before the Election Commission of India on various grounds and sought a direction to conduct fresh party election for the post of General Secretary in accordance with the provisions of the party and other reliefs. The Election Commission of India passed an interim order on 22.03.2017, frozen the first respondent/first defendant party symbol two leaves and prohibited both rival factions from using the first respondent/first defendant party name and two leaves symbol during the pendency of the dispute. In the mean while, most of the MLAs, MPs, Executive Council Members and General Council Members under the leadership of third respondent/third defendant merged with the second respondent/second defendant faction on 21.08.2017. Thereafter, on 12.09.2017, the General Council passed 12 resolutions. This according to the applicants/plaintiffs, resolution nos.7,10,11 and 12 were ultra vires to the Original Constitution of party. Further, the resolution created new posts viz., Coordinator, Joint Coordinator and Deputy Coordinators. As per resolution No.11, all the administrative powers of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam were conferred on the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator who are assuming the administrative responsibilities of the Khazhagam. The Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator have absolute power to relax or exclude any Rule of the bylaw of the party which came into force from 01.12.2021 which was decided in the Executive Committee meeting. The amendments made in the first respondent/first defendant party Constitution violated the rights of the primary members, disturbed basic structure of the original party constitution/the rules and regulations and ultra vires to the spirit of the provisions of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Thereafter, in the Executive Committee Meeting held on 01.12.2022, a special resolution was passed creating the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator and announced that the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator will be elected by the members of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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