Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Thiru. O. Panneerselvam, Co-Ordinator/Treasurer, AIADMK, Chennai & Another - Appellant
Versus
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Rep. by its Co-Ordinator & Joint Co-Ordinator, Chennai & Others - Respondent
O.A. No. 368 of 2022 in C.S. No. 118 of 2022 & O.A. Nos. 370 & 379 of 2022 in C.S. No. 119 of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2022
The High Court of Madras, in a comprehensive judgment, delved into the intra-party rivalry within the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and adjudicated upon the validity of a General Council meeting convened by one faction of the party. The Court extensively examined the party's constitution and relevant rules to determine the authority to convene such meetings and the procedural requirements that needed to be followed.
Fact of the Case:
Two rival factions within the AIADMK, led by O. Panneerselvam and Edappadi K. Palaniswami, respectively, were locked in a dispute over the party's leadership and the validity of a General Council meeting called by Palaniswami's faction. The meeting was challenged by Panneerselvam's faction, who argued that it was not convened in accordance with the party's constitution and rules.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court, after a thorough analysis of the party's constitution and relevant rules, held that the General Council meeting convened by Palaniswami's faction was invalid. The Court found that the meeting was not convened by the authorized person, as per the party's constitution, and that proper notice was not provided to the members. The Court also rejected the argument that the meeting was valid because it was attended by a majority of the General Council members, stating that the validity of the meeting could not be determined solely based on the number of attendees.
Issues: 1. Whether the General Council meeting was convened by the authorized person, as per the party's constitution? 2. Whether proper notice was provided to the members for the General Council meeting? 3. Whether the meeting was valid because it was attended by a majority of the General Council members?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the following legal principles: 1. The validity of a General Council meeting depends on compliance with the party's constitution and rules. 2. The authority to convene a General Council meeting is vested in specific individuals or bodies, as per the party's constitution. 3. Proper notice must be provided to the members for a General Council meeting, as prescribed by the party's constitution and rules. 4. The validity of a General Council meeting cannot be determined solely based on the number of attendees.
Final Decision: The High Court declared the General Council meeting convened by Palaniswami's faction as invalid and issued directions to maintain the status quo ante as on the date before the meeting. The Court also directed that no Executive Council or General Council meeting could be held without the joint consent of both Panneerselvam and Palaniswami. The Court further directed that if a proper representation from not less than 1/5th 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.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: O.A.No.368 of 2022: Original Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C.,
1. WHY this Application should not be treated as urgent.
2. WHY this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants from convening the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other date without the express authorization of both the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator of the 1st respondent party should not be allowed pending disposal of the suit.
3. To what relief is the Applicant/Plaintiff entitled to.
O.A.No.370 of 2022: Original Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rule read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C.,
1. WHY this Application should not be treated as urgent.
2. WHY this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from convening the alleged General Council Meeting of the 1st 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 and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
3. WHY this Hon'ble Court should not be pleased to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
O.A.No.379 of 2022: Original Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rule read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C.,
1. WHY this application should not be treated as urgent.
2. WHY this Court should not pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from passing any resolution relating to the abolition of the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator as they were elected by the primary members of the party for the term of 5 years as per the by-law 20(A) ii, 20 A(iii) and consequentially direct the respondents from not implementing there solutions/decisions relating to item Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 mentioned in the alleged notice dated 01.07.2022 in the alleged General Council Meeting, which is to be held on 11.07.2022 pending disposal of the suit and pass orders.
3. To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.)
Common Order:
1. This case is in connection with the intra-party rivalry over the question who to lead the Political Party called AIADMK.
2. The dominance of this party in the State of Tamil Nadu polity could be easily understood from the fact that it had been in power for about 30 years out of its 50 years of existence and it has also played key role in the Indian politics at National level on various occasions being part of the National Cabinet.
3. The launch of the party in the year 1972 by its founder Late M.G.Ramachandran, was almost an act of impulse. When he was expelled from DMK, (the party in which he was holding the post of Treasurer at the relevant point of time) by its General Council, his followers prompted him to start this party. Therefore in the said background, when he launched the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK in short) on 17.10.1972, he ensured that the General Council of the party will be the Supreme body among the party organs, and the General Secretary of the party to be elected by the primary members and the General Secretary will head the party with unfettered power. The party Bye-Law was accordingly, drafted. Rule 20, Rule 42 and Rule 43 of the Party Constitution vested the ultimate administrative responsibility with the General Secretary, including power of exemption to the Rules and Regulations, except the mode of electing the General Secretary, which should be by the primary members of the party and Rule 43 prohibited any cha
The long usage of the flag, which has acquired proprietary rights of the political party, and the absence of a provision for registration of the flag were central legal principles established in the ....
The court dismissed the appeals against the interim injunction, stating that no final orders had been passed, and the interim injunction was based on sound discretion and was granted for a limited pe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Bye-Laws 23, 27(d), and 29(c) of the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru Bye-Laws, which govern the election pr....
The court affirmed that a political party's internal dispute resolution must adhere to established party rules, and a suit becomes infructuous if the faction it represents ceases to exist.
Section 25 of Act which reads as enquiry by Registrar, etc.
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
