IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, N. SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Chennai & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, (Puratchi Thalaivi Amma) through its Office bearer: E. Madhusudanan & Ors. - Respondents
A.S. Nos. 337, 338 & 339 of 2022 & Civil Revision Petition No. 2347 of 2022 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On : 05-12-2023
JUDGMENT
(Prayers: in AS Nos. 337 to 339 of 2022: These appeals have been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to set aside the decretal order dated 11.04.2022 passed in (i) I.A.No.8 of 2021 in O.S.No.1413 of 2021, (ii) I.A.No.10 of 2021 in O.S.No.1413 of 2021, (iii) I.A.No.9 of 2021 in O.S.No.1413 of 2021on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai. In CRP No.2347 of 2022: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 11.04.2022, passed by the IV Additional City Civil Court at Chennai in IA No.11 of 2021 in OS No.1413/2021 (C.S. No.858/2017 (B)).)
Common Judgement
R. Subramanina, J.
1. These Appeals and the Revision symbolize the power tussle in one of the major political parties in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Political Party viz. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam was founded by Dr.M.G.Ramnachandran, a star of yesteryears, during the year 1972. The constitution of the party which is called the Rules and Regulations framed soon after the formation of the Political Party were amended from time to time to suit the needs of the political situation in the State.
2. On the passing away of Dr.M.G.Ramanchandran, the party split into two, where one of the factions was led by his wife Janaki Ramachandran and the other by his close confidant Dr.J.Jayalalitha, who was also a movie star of yesteryears. However, after suffering a major defeat in the elections that ensued immediately after the split, both the factions came together and Dr.J.Jayalalitha, became the General Secretary of the party.
3. As per the constitution of the party, the post of the General Secretary has the highest authority in the party and it weilds enormous powers. Dr.J.Jayalalitha took ill and eventually met her maker on 05.12.2016. On her passing away began the struggle for power in the party.
4. A notice convening the Meeting of the General Council of the party on 29.12.2016 was issued on 09.12.2016 by the office bearers of the Headquarters of the party. At the said meeting Tmt. V.K.Sasikala, was appointed as the interim General Secretary. Her name was proposed by almost all the members of the Executive Council of the party and was seconded by the members of the General Council. To put it simply, she was the unanimous choice. However, Mr.O.Panneerselvam, one of the prominent members of the party, who was the Chief Minister resigned as Chief Minister on 07.02.2017.
5. On 14.02.2017, the Appeal against the Criminal case by the General Secretary Tmt. V.K.Sasikala, as against her conviction was dismissed thereby confirming her conviction. As a result of which she was incarcerated at the Parappana Agrahara Prison in Bangaluru. On 16.02.2017, Mr.Edappadi K. Palanisamy, another prominent member of the party was chosen and sworn in as the Chief Minister. Upon her appointment as General Secretary, Tmt.V.K.Sasikala, appointed the third plaintiff in the suit one Mr. T.T.V.Dhinakaran, as a Deputy General Secretary on 14.02.2017. In her capacity as General Secretary, Tmt. V.K.Sasikala, removed Mr.E.Madhusudanan and Mr.O.Panneerselvam , who figure as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit, as office-bearers of the party. While Mr.O.Panneerselvam was removed from the post of the Treasurer, Mr.Madhusudanan, was removed from the post of the Presidium Chairman as well as from the primary membership of the party with effect from 10.02.2017. Several other nominations were also made to various posts in the party consequent upon removal of the incumbents. These removals and appointments were forwarded to the Election Commission of India also.
6. This led to a dispute as to which of the two groups represented the real party. Both the groups approached the Election Commission of India under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. The Election commission passed an interim order on 22.03.2017 freezing the symbol of the party and directing both the quarrel
AI
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.
The Court found that the applicants had common interest and were entitled to get leave for filing the suit.
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 right to continue a suit can survive the death of a party if the cause of action is common to multiple parties, and the addition of new parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is permissible to avoi....
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 ....
Judicial orders must maintain consistency; once signed by a judge, an order cannot be rescinded without legitimate reasons, ensuring lawful procedural conduct in civil matters.
As per Rule 3 of the Rules, an Election Petition shall be instituted within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.