Dismissed

P a Jose, v. T S George

Kerala HC26 Nov 2019OP(C)/1486/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order disposed of two original petitions challenging an interim injunction order passed on consent by lower courts in a suit regarding internal affairs of a registered association. The court held that the consent order is not challengeable under Article 227 and dismissed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The original petitions were dismissed as they were found to be devoid of merit since the impugned order was passed on consent and not challengeable under Article 227.

P a Jose, Vs T S George — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

OP(C).No.1486 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2019 IN CMA 51/2019 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.04.2019 IN IA 3668/2018 IN OS 820/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 P A JOSE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, WELFARE TRADERS, ARAVUSALA KAIPAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680681, AND RESIDING AT PALATHINKAL HOUSE, THEKKUMMOOLA, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR-680733.

¶9

2 K.K.GOPU, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, KARINGATTIL FINANCIERS, ARUKALICKAL EAST, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMON P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691556.

¶10

3 JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, MALLAPPALLIL HOUSE, MATHUMOOLA P.O., VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN-686103.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS:

¶13

T S GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O.T.E.SAMUEL, THANDATHIL HOUSE, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686516.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL R1 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP(C).2139/2019, THE COURT ON 26.11.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶19

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶20

OP(C).No.2139 OF 2019

¶21

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2019 IN CMA 51/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM IN IA 3668/2018 IN OS 820/18 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶22

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶23

T.S.GEORGE, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.T.E.SAMUEL, THADATHIL HOUSE,MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 516, TREASURER, ALL KERALA PRIVATE BANKERS ASSOCIATION, BANKERS BHAVAN, KODIMATHA P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 013.

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SRI.RONY JOSE SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN SRI.LEO LUKOSE SMT.SUZANNE KURIAN SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI

¶25

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶26

1 P.A.JOSE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, WELFARE TRADERS, ARAVUSALA, KAIPAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680681, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, THEKKUMMOOLA, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR - 680 733.

¶27

2 K.K.GOPU, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, KARINGATTIL FINANCIERS, ARUKALICKAL EAST, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMON P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 556.

¶28

OP(C).No.2139 OF 2019 -2-

¶29

3 JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR, MALLAPPALLIL HOUSE, MATHUMOOLA P.O., VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN 686 103.

¶30

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.SHIJU VARGHESE

¶31

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP(C).1486/2019, THE COURT ON 26.11.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(C) Nos.2139 & 1486 of 2019 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2019

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The dispute within the “All Kerala Private Bankers Association” which is an association registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, is the subject matter of these original petitions. The original petitions arise from an interlocutory proceeding for injunction pending disposal of the suit.

¶36

The suit is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶37

“A. To declare the plaintiff as the Treasurer of All Kerala Private Bankers Association having registered office at Bankers Bhavan, Kodimatha, Kottayam vide Registration No.K.114/1974.

¶38

B. To declare the meeting held on 11.11.2018 at Citizen Club Kottayam by the defendants 1 to 3 as illegal and the decisions taken in the said meeting as void.

¶39

C. To pass a permanent prohibitory

¶40

O.P.(C) Nos.2139 & 1486 of 2019

¶41

:- 2 :-

¶42

injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men and all other persons under them from preventing or obstructing the plaintiff from entering the registered office of the All Kerala Private Bankers Association situated in the plaint schedule property and discharging the duties as the Treasurer of the All Kerala Private Bankers Association vide Registration No.K.114/1974.

¶43

` D. Allow such other incidental reliefs which this Hon'ble Curt deem just and reasonable in the course of the suit.

¶44

E. Allow the plaintiffs to realise the cost of the suit from the contesting defendants.”

¶45

Admittedly the plaintiff was elected as an office bearer (Treasurer) of the association in its meeting held on 23.09.2018. According to defendants 1 to 3, on 11.11.2018, a meeting of the association was held wherein it was decided to remove the plaintiff and the 5^th defendant who was yet another office bearer, from their respective posts. It is further claimed that in the said meeting held on 11.11.2018 they were elected as office bearers of the association. The plaintiff admits the receipt

¶46

O.P.(C) Nos.2139 & 1486 of 2019

¶47

:- 3 :-

¶48

of communication regarding his removal from the post of treasurer.

¶49

Essentially the issue involved is regarding the validity of the meeting allegedly held on 11.11.2018. The courts below have prima facie found against the validity of the meeting and election purportedly held therein. Of course that finding is only for the purpose of disposal of the interlocutory application. The suit will have to be tried and disposed of on its merits. The finding of

¶50

the courts below is based on materials and supported by reasonings, and does not call for any interference.

¶51

The learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 to 3 would submit that as has been noticed by the courts below, the tenure of the elected members was for one year which expired on 23.09.2019. Thereafter, there has been fresh election and the plaintiff is not entitled to continue in office. The learned counsel for the plaintiff dispute the same, and referring to the bye-laws of the society contend that the term of

¶52

O.P.(C) Nos.2139 & 1486 of 2019

¶53

:- 4 :-

¶54

office is three years. Anyhow, those are not matters which calls for adjudication in the present interlocutory application. Presently this court is concerned about the correctness, propriety or otherwise of the orders passed by the courts below on the present application.

¶55

It is seen that after having prima facie found that the plaintiff is the duly elected treasurer of the association, as conceded by the counsel for the plaintiff, the authority to sign the cheque and to transact financial matters was conferred by the Court, on the president, treasurer and secretary to be exercised jointly. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that the said arrangement is against the express provisions of the bye-laws and is liable to be interfered with. The relevant part of the judgment in the C.M.Appeal reads thus:-

¶56

“This Court is of the view that the interests of the Association will be adequately served if the authority to sign the cheque, as also, to transact financial matters is given to the Secretary as well,

¶57

O.P.(C) Nos.2139 & 1486 of 2019

¶58

:- 5 :-

¶59

along with the President and the Treasurer. As regards the above course, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has no objection, as expressed in the open Court, although the allegations raised against the plaintiff and the fifth defendant was seriously opposed by him.

¶60

Resultantly, this Court directed that, hereafter, the cheques of the Association will be processed only if it is signed by the three office bearers, namely President, Treasurer and the Secretary, who are the 5^th defendant, plaintiff and the first defendant respectively in the suit. Similarly, the authority to enter into and sign all financial transactions is also vested upon the said three office bearers. It is clarified that the cheques and other financial transactions will be valid only if it is signed by all the three persons referred to above. Except for this restriction, the powers of the Treasurer will continue as such, including his right to enter the office, as claimed for, in the interlocutory application. This arrangement is made by invoking the inherent powers of this Court to do justice and to advance equities amongst the parties to the list.”

¶61

O.P.(C) Nos.2139 & 1486 of 2019

¶62

:- 6 :-

¶63

The said direction appears to have been made on consent. The order passed on consent is not liable to be challenged before this Court under article 227 of the Constitution. If the plaintiff is aggrieved by the said direction and if he has a case that there was no such concession made or if he has any grievance regarding the same, that is a matter to be moved before the learned District Court.

¶64

I find the original petitions to be devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.

¶65

Sd/- SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1486/2019

¶70

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶71

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.820/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 24.11.2018.

¶72

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.3668/2018 IN O.S.NO.820/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 24.11.2018.

¶73

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 TO I.A.NO.3668/2018 IN O.S.NO.820/2018 DATED 8.1.2019.

¶74

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.4.2019 IN I.A.NO.3668/2018 IN O.S.NO.820/2018 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶75

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.5.2019 IN C.M.A.NO.51/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶76

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE ALL KERALA PRIVATE BANKERS ASSOCIATION.

¶77

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AUDITORS.

¶78

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2139/2019

¶79

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶80

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.820/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶81

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.3668/2018 IN O.S.820/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶82

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN I.A.NO.3668/2018 IN O.S.NO.820/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN O.S.NO.820/2018 DATED 09/04/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.51/2019 ON THE FILES OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAMA. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE ALL KERALA PRIVATE BANKERS' ASSOCIATION.

P a Jose, v. T S George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P a Jose, v. T S George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadrack Vs Christudanam

P.P.Rajeev & Another Vs Prince P.Pathrose

Kodiparambil Chatha Vs Unnikrishna Varier

Jai Shankar V.P. Vs the Superintendent of Police (Rural)

V.N.Balachandran Pillai Vs Unnikrishnan Nair

George Vs John