This appeal challenged a trial court order granting an interim injunction restraining newly elected office bearers of a society from acting. The High Court upheld the injunction, finding that the interim committee appointed to assist elections had no power to remove election commissioners or call a meeting. The earlier election process stood.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A. NO.2275/2023 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1 . DR. P.P. MAIYA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.343, 25TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU.
2 . DR. SWARNA REKHA BHAT AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.310, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN, SADANANDA NAGAR BENGALURU-560038.
3 . DR. ARCHANA BILAGI AGED MAJOR R/AT ST. PHILOMINA HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF PAEDIATRICS NO.4, MOTHER THERESA ROAD NEAR LIFE STYLE, VIVEKANAGAR, BENGALURU-560047
4 . DR. S.R. KUMAR AGED MAJOR R/AT HASSAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF PAEDIATRICS SRI CHAMARAJENDRA HOSPITAL CAMPUS KRISHNARAJA PURA, HASSAN-573201.
2
5 . DR. SREENATH S. MANIKANTI AGED MAJOR R/AT KAUVERY HOSPITAL, Sy.NO.92/1, HPA VENUE, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA MYSORE-570 011. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . NNF KARNATAKA STATE CHAPTER BANGALORE REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.473, 5TH MAIN ROAD, HMT LAYOUT, ANANDA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560024 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
DR. RPASHANTH GOWDA
3
4 . DR. BANAPURMATH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.390 8TH MAIN ROAD, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANGERE-577 002. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.05.2023)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.5500/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-43, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
THIS M.F.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 20.07.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents. This miscellaneous appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the granting of injunction order and prayed this Court to set-aside the order passed on
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and to dismiss I.A.No.1 and 2 filed by
the plaintiff before the Trial Court.
4
before the Trial Court that, the plaintiff (NNF Karnataka) being the Society registered under the Karnataka Society’s Act, 1960 and till 31.03.2022 there was a elected body consisting of President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Board Members which came to an end on 31.03.2022. It is also case of the plaintiff that, the General Body meeting was held on 28.08.2021 and appointed Sri.L.H.Bidari and Dr. Jagadish Chinnappa as Election Commissioners to oversee the proposed election for two years. The plaintiff is the NNF Karnataka and it is also the contention that in General Body meeting held on 30.03.2022 it was unanimously decided constitute an Interim Committee constituting of Dr.P.P.Maiya, Dr. Veerabhadrappa and Dr.Devraj Raichur being the defendants and it was unanimously decided that Dr.P.P.Maiya will be the head
5
of Interim Committee as chair person to correct incomplete NNFK membership credentials and handover the list to Election Commissioner to complete the election process, which is half way through. It is also contended that, defendants are all aware that the task given to Interim Committee was to see to that all the members of Karnataka NNFK Association from 1994 onward will continue to be members of NNF Karnataka Chapter which was duly registered on 31.01.2017 and no other task was given to Interim Committee. The Election Commissioners constituted vide Annual General Body Meeting dated 28.08.2021 announced the conducting of election i.e., election schedule, election rules and code of conduct. Pursuant to the same, several candidates filed their nominations for the posts of office bearers. The process of declaration of valid nominations was also completed by the said Election Commission and even the last date of withdrawal of nominations were also
6
complete. The date of E-voting and declaration of results was announced by the Election Commission vide notice dated: 28.07.2022 fixing the date of E-voting as 01.08.2022, 12 p.m., onwards to 10th August 2022, 5 p.m., and declaration of results on 10th August 2022 at 6 p.m.
7
Meeting, in the event of no quorum the meeting has to be called-off. But, in the instant case the defendants Nos.1 to 3 have unlawfully gone ahead with the Extraordinary General Body Meeting and have illegally removed the existing Election Commissioners and have unlawfully appointed the defendant Nos.4 and 5 as Election Commissioners without assigning any reasons for the same and also without having the required quorum to hold the Extraordinary General body Meeting.
8
Committee by a General Body Meeting held on 30.03.2022.
Meeting held on 28.08.2021 have gone ahead and completed the process of Election, wherein totally 368
9
members have casted their votes and thus on 10.08.2022 the Election Commissioners have declared and announced the results wherein Dr.Prashanth Gowda is elected as President of plaintiffs Society as he has secured 206 numbers of Votes and Dr.Archana Bilagi is declared as the returned candidate who has secured 94 Votes, thus as per the said results the Elections for the posts of the office bearers of the plaintiffs Society is completed by the Election Commissioners and as authorized by General Body Meeting dated 28.08.2021. The plaintiffs having narrated all these facts into consideration also contend that they have filed suit in OS No.5309/2022 restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 from holding any Elections to the post of President on behalf of the plaintiffs Society and sought for permanent injunction defendant Nos.1 to 3 from continuing as the Interim Committee of the plaintiff’s Society and resolution dated 24.07.2022 void and illegal and the
10
same without jurisdiction and also grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos.1 to 5 to handover all the stamp and seal books of accounts original Bye laws and all relevant documents to the plaintiff’s Society and Court has ordered for emergent notice and having the knowledge of the said suit also indulged in such acts and hence sought for the relief of judgment and decree declaring the Elections declared on 23.08.2022 to defendants Nos.1 to 5 declaring defendant Nos.6 to 8 are the office bearers as illegal and void and one without authority and permanently restrained them from discharging the duty as office bearers and permanent injunction restraining them interfering them from day to day affairs of the plaintiff’s Society and pass such other orders.
11
bearers and claiming and appearing before the
Authorities/Forums/Departments/Institution and Banks interfering with day to day affairs of plaintiff’s Society. In support of this application an affidavit is sworn by the President and re-iterated the averments of plaint and prayed the interim relief.
12
constitution, the current defendant No.6 was initially Secretary and defendant No.3 was the initial President of the Society, the Election with respect to the plaintiffs Society is to be held once in every 2 years and there are specific criteria for office bearers. For president he should be life member of NNF for more than 10 years, for Secretary life member of NNF for more than 3 years and for member of governing council life member of NNF for more than 2 years. The President period is only for 2 years, however immediately after 1 year after assuming the role of President, the governing body would going for the Vote for the next president who would be assuming the charge after the completion of the term of the incumbent President. It is the concept of the President elect was introduced within the plaintiffs Society for smoothening the transition of Administration not only the past President of the Society would be in governing council end and once the term of governing council
13
would end, the President will automatically take charge for the purpose of holding fresh Elections and the remaining members of the General Body i.e., Secretary/Treasurer/Joint Secretary would come in and it is also the contention of the appellants before the Trial Court that for the purpose of the Elections it could be seen the Clause-8 of the Bye Law of the regulation of the plaintiffs Society as a mode and manner in which Elections are to be conducted for the Society and it is seen that as per Clause-8(i) of the Bye law regulation mandates that, for the purpose of holding Election, Election Commission would be set up and in turn the said Election Commission would be constituted two persons,
one Election officer and other existing President of Secretary and in-absentia two nominated officer who would conduct Elections as per Bye Law. They have to follow the procedure for conducting the Election. The code of conduct of Election within a Society is self
14
regulated affair as to take effect in terms of the bye laws and such Elections would held only by such authorized Commission. It is also contention that after the registration of the Society in the year 2017, three President and office bearers have worked from 2016-22 and no dispute to the said period. The term of governing council was to end on 31.03.2022. The past Election Commissioners had failed in their duty to conduct Elections at appropriate time and have a President elect a vacuum have been created for transfer of powers after their term ending on 31.03.2022. Hence for the purpose of holding Elections and for the purpose of the taking care of the Administrations till Elections were held, an Interim Committee was formed in the General Body Meeting held on 30.03.2023 which was initiated and called by Dr.Kotturesha, President and plaintiff himself who was then Hon’ble Secretary. The Interim Committee constituted of three past President of Dr.P.P.Maiya, Dr.
15
Veerabhadrappa and Dr.Devraj Raichur. Dr.P.P.Maiya was nominated as convener of Interim Committee by the General Body Meeting. For the term of 2022 to 2024, in so for as the President is concerned the Election with respect to the President is conducted in the April-2022 itself which had not been for various reasons which was known to Dr.Prashanth Gowda and Dr.Kotturesha. hence, immediately upon resolution of the governing council elected for the tenure of the year 2022 when it came to an end on 31.03.2022, since the Society did not have any of the person of the affairs. An Interim Committee was constituted, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 as its administrators. The Interim Committee was specifically assigned the responsibility to assist conducting Elections and run the day to day affairs of NNF Karnataka State by the members of NNF as per the General Body Meeting held on 30.03.2022 wherein they were nominated. The election notification was created by the previous Election
16
Commissioner. The Interim Committee taking note of the dereliction of previously appointed Election Commissinoer namely Dr.Jagadeesh Chinnappa and Dr.L.H.Bidari who had not conducted or completed the Election process for the post of President and other office bearers and also noted the fact that Election Commissioner has not performed their duty, hence resolved to nominate new Election Commissioner and in this regard, Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 24.07.2022 and in the said meeting, it was discussed elaborately regarding failure of Election Commissioners in conducting the Elections in a free and fair manner, intimation was sent to various members of the Society and consequently emergent Extraordinary General Body Meeting was called upon to take a decision to appoint new Election commissioner, but the same was intimated to all the members. As such the appointment to Election Commissioner is a prerogative of the Interim
17
Administrators who have conducted their job. Hence, it was decided by members to appoint new Election Commissioners i.e., defendant Nos.4 and 5. The change of Election Commissioner in General Body Meeting held on 24.07.2022 was intimated to all the members of the Society including the previous elected Commissioners by convener of the Interim Committee and minutes of the General Body Meeting held on 24.07.2022 was also to shared to all members of NNF Karnataka.
is continued in spite of this, the same is not recognized and the same is illegal and electing Dr.Prashanth Gowda as President was totally farce and does not stand the scrutiny of law. The procedure had not been followed and no fresh Election events has been published and followed the procedure and the said Dr.Prashanth Gowda could have presented suit as a member and he has no locus standi authority to represent the Society as a President
18
and same is not in accordance with Section 15 and 16 of
Societies Registration Act.
suit was filed in OS No.5309/2022 only emergent notice
issued, since the Court did not find any grounds to grant any interim order and by filing the present suit, they obtained an order of injunction. The Trial Court committed an error in not considering the factual aspects of the plaint as well as the written statement filed by the appellants herein and proceeded erroneously in coming to the conclusion that Elections have been conducted and
in terms of the General Body Meeting held on 28.08.2021, President and office bearers have been elected in the process of Election Commissioners who have been appointed by General Body Meeting held on 28.08.2021 and Trial Court fails to take note of the fact that, the Election Commissioners who have been appointed earlier have not conducted the Election on or
19
before 31.03.2022 and also committed an error that, Interim Committee calling an Extraordinary General Body Meeting and illegally removing the Election
Commissioners and appointing defendant Nos.4 and 5 as Election Commissioners without assigning any reasons though the Interim Committee has no power to call Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 24.07.2022 as the task assigned to the Interim Committee cannot more step beyond the task that assigned to the Interim Committee by the General Body Meeting held on 31.03.2022. The very approach of Trial Court is erroneous in coming to the conclusion that plaintiffs have made out prima facie case, balance convenience in favour of the plaintiffs.
paragraph No.21 wherein discussed with regard to the
20
step by step process involved in conducting the Elections and same should be transparent and it should give accurate voting results and same has not been followed and the arranged Elections and Election of President and other office bearers is illegal and unless the procedure is followed, the same cannot be called as a transparent Election was conducted. The counsel also brought to notice of Bye Law No.8 and 9 with regard to how to conduct an Election and contend that when the period was expired on 30.03.2022 and same was dissolved and administrator was appointed by appointing Interim Committee members and Election was incomplete and Elections were not held and Trial Court fails to take note of the fact that, new Election Commissioners are appointed and date is also fixed as 01.09.2022 and notification is also issued appointing new Commissioner on 28.07.2022. The defendant Nos.6 to 8 are unanimously appointed as office bearers and in the eye
21
of law no Election and no process of Election and no transparency and Elections were conducted by virtual mode and life time members are 868 and only they are claiming that 362 only voted, same is not in terms of the Bye law, alleged Election is suffering from transparency and Trial Court committed an error.
22
appellant was elected as office bearer and even by conducting Elections also E-voting link was sent and 206 members voted in favour of the President.
appellants also participated and not withdrawn the nomination in terms of the notification issued by the Election officers who have been appointed in terms of the General Body Meeting dated 28.08.2021 now they cannot contend that Elections are not valid and also counsel would vehemently contend that, only one Interim Committee in existence. The counsel also vehemently contend that, one Dr.P.P.Maiya who is also the member as jointly filed the affidavit and in the suit subsequent Election is challenged and Court has to consider the same while considering the main relief. The Trial Court not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that, Elections were held in terms of the General Body Meeting held on 28.08.2021 and Election
23
Commissioners were also appointed and Election
Commissioners who have been appointed in terms of the General Body Meeting resolutions, the Elections were
conducted and hence not committed any error.
24
published and such being the case, the very Election of President and claiming that he is the President cannot be accepted and the Trial Court committed an error.
the learned counsel for the respondent and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra by the appellant’s counsel, the points that would arise for
consideration are:
25
Point No.1 :
particularly averments of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration in O.S.No.5500/2022 to declare the Elections declared on 23.08.2022 and defendant Nos.1 to 5 declaring defendant Nos.6 to 8 are President/Secretary/Joint Secretary and Treasurer respectively is illegal and void and one without authority and also a permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.6 to 8 as office bearers and inter-alia sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.6 to 8 claiming President, Secretary and office bearers. The main contention of the plaintiff that, Society was registered under the Society’s Act and no dispute that, Society was registered in 2017 and also no dispute with regard to the fact that, office bearers were elected 2020-2022 and also no dispute that, the period is ending on 31.03.2022. It is
26
also not in dispute that, after one year of appointment of office bearers, in order to smooth functioning of the Society start function for electing new office bearers for the period 2022-24 and it is also not in dispute that, a resolution was passed in 28.08.2021 in that process and also the said document is produced by the respondents herein i.e., General Body Meeting and decision was taken to election process and Bye Law and members who attended physically and virtually ratified resolution was passed and agenda also with regard to, for the election of President/Vice President/Secretary and office bearers to be elected and who can contest Election and eligibility and also unanimously accepted and ratified the General Body Meeting with regard to appointing Dr.Swarna Rekha Bhat, Dr.L.H.Bidari, Dr.P.P.Maiya, Dr.Kotresh and also appointing Election Commissioners as Dr.Jagadeesh Chinnappa and Dr.L.H.Bidari. Hence, it is clear that, General Body Meeting decision was taken to elect new office bearers. It is also
27
important to note that though calendar of events are issued
to conduct the Elections for the term of the office bearers to 01.04.2022 to 01.04.2024 and calendar of events are published from February-2015 till March-2022 elections were not conducted and resolutions was also passed on 30.03.2022 wherein discussion with regard to Interim Committee should be formed headed by Dr.P.P.Maiya, Dr. Veerabhadrappa and Dr.Devraj Raichur as they will take the charge for the next procedure till the election process is complete and accepted the same in the majority decision and also new Interim Committee member also participated in the resolution and same is for the limited purpose only and it is also mentioned that main job is to assist the Election Commission by submitting verified list of members. This is for the smooth completion of Election process, they are not responsible for each and everything in NNFK. The other Interim Committee member Dr.P.P.Maiya also expressed his view that, his understanding that this
28
committee if formed soon after the current office vacates then they will start working on it. They also said that they are not responsible for each and everything, they will try to rectify the lapse and help Election Commission from 2022 to 2024 for a smooth completion of Election process. Having perused the resolution dated 30th March is very clear that i.e., for appointing Interim Committee is to rectify the lapse
and to assist the Election Commissioner and no authority is given to Interim Committee to conduct and call for any special meeting or to issue any calendar of events, but it is important to note that one more notification was issued since the Election was not conducted within 31.03.2022 and hence on 28.07.2022 Election notification was issued fixing the date from 01.08.2022 to 30.08.2022 for the process.
29
Meeting was also held wherein participated only 54
members and decision was taken to appoint fresh Election Commissioners and issued separate election notification dated 05.08.2022 to process from 05.08.2022 to 12.09.2022 having peruse these documents the material document which is clear that Interim Committee called for Extraordinary General Body Meeting. Having taken note of resolution dated 30.03.2022 no such powers was given to them even either in the earlier General Body Meeting dated 28.08.2021 or in the subsequent General Body Meeting 30.03.2022 and they would not have taken any decision where scope is very limited and constituted for the limited purpose only as for the one of the member of the Interim Committee and so also the Dr.P.P.Maiya, he also stated in his statement that he is not responsible for each and everything and they will try to rectify the lapse and help the Election Commissioner 2022 to 2024, when such decision was taken in the said resolution the other contention of the
30
appellants counsel that they have not conducted the Elections and hence separate calendar of events are published by calling extra general special meeting cannot be accepted and Trial Court also taken note of the material available on record. No doubt earlier also notification issued in terms of document No.6 and Elections were not conducted in the month of February and March. On 28.07.2022 separate notification was issued fixing the date for Election and resolution was passed by calling special extraordinary general body meeting on 24.07.2022, but while calling for extraordinary general body meeting also members should be present and document itself discloses that only 54 persons were attended the same. When the powers are given to conduct the Election vide General Body Meeting dated 28.08.2021 and also on 30.03.2022 and accordingly process was taken place and counter notification was also issued and relief is also sought whether to declare that the alleged Election is null and void
31
and prevent them in performing the duties and when the decision was taken in General Body Meeting 28.08.2021 and also on 30.03.2022 it is clear only decision taken on 28.08.2021 that Election has to be conducted admittedly no Election was conducted before the period and hence separate General Body Meeting called on 30.03.2022 wherein Interim Committee is constituted for the limited purpose and also to rectify the lapse and only to help the Election Commissioner and but in terms of the resolution on 24th July new Election Commissioners are appointed and only 54 members have participated in the said meeting, when such being the case the very contention of the appellants counsel that they conducted Elections in a proper manner and Extraordinary General Body Meeting was conducted and consequent upon process was completed cannot be accepted. The material discloses that a decision was taken on 28.08.2021 for conducting Election and also with regard to the eligibility. Subsequently, notification was
32
issued and could not conduct Election as per the notification
and hence one more General Body Meeting convened on 30.03.2022 only the Interim Committee is constituted for the limited purpose, when such being the case, the very contention that they have appointed new Election Commissioners and election conducted cannot be accepted and the Court has to look into the prima facie materials available on record.
28.08.2021 and also the resolution dated 30.03.2022
powers are given to Election officers to conduct the Election and they have conducted the Election and same has not been questioned by the appellants before any Court of law and only depending on their acts in the present suit by filing written statement and adopting the statement of objections and hence I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in granting an order of temporary injunction. The Trial Court has also taken note of details of contentions of
33
both the counsel for plaintiffs as well as defendants. No doubt in the judgment referred by the counsel for the appellants of Delhi High Court in paragraph No.21, the procedure is stated but the case on hand I have already pointed out the Court has to look into the prima facie material and in keeping the resolution dated 28.08.2021 and also subsequent resolution dated 30.03.2022 and subsequently the Election officers who have appointed to conduct the Election have issued the notification and conducted the Election. I do not find any error committed by Trial Court taking into note of such fact into consideration the Trial Court in paragraph No.21 taken note of the Annual General Body Meeting decision dated 28.08.2021 and also the appointment of Election officers and also taken note of the Election held by the Election officer and rightly comes to the conclusion that the Interim Committee has no power to call for Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 24.07.2022 and the task assign to them is
34
only for the limited purpose and Interim Committee cannot take more steps beyond the task that assign to the Interim Committee by the Extraordinary General Body Meeting and the General Body Meeting dated 31.03.2022 is also very clear that the Interim Committee set up for the limited purpose and hence it cannot be contended that Elections are conducted illegally and Court has to look into only prima facie material to grant an order of injunction and hence in paragraph No.23 discussing the material on record rightly comes to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court has also in paragraph No.24 taken note of material on record and considered balance of convenience and rightly comes to the conclusion
that if temporary injunction is not granted, definitely the plaintiffs Society will be put into great hardship and injury and having considered the reasoning given by the Trial Court also I do not find any error committed by Trial Court in allowing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
35
and it does not requires any interference of this Court to
set-aside the order. Hence, I answer the point No.1 as Negative.
Point No.2 :
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
RHS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in granting temporary injunction in a suit concerning election of office bearers of a society?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CS(original OS 414/2020) (Delhi High Court)Referred¶21
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. P.P. Maiya
Dr. Swarna Rekha Bhat
Dr. Archana Bilagi
Dr. S.R. Kumar
Dr. Sreenath S. Manikanti
NNF Karnataka State Chapter Bangalore
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
