The single judge dismissed applications for interim injunctions against society elections and applications for impleading additional members, holding the latter lacked bona fides and the former had no merit regarding the election process.
Applications for impleadment and interim injunctions were dismissed with no costs.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN O.A.Nos.1230 and 1231 of 2017 and A.Nos.2491 and 4018 of 2017 in C.S.No.300 of 2017
C.S.No.300 of 2017: M.A.M.R.Muthiah Treasurer and Executive Committee Member The Gandhinagar Education Society “Chettinad House” Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028 ..Plaintiff Vs 1. The Gandhinagar Education Society Rep.by its Secretary, AR, Ramaswamy (Kumararajah Muthiah Hr.Sec.School Campus) No.4, Crescent Avenue Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. 2. AR.Ramaswamy Secretary, The Gandhinagar Education Society (Kumararajah Muthiah Hr.Sec.School Campus) No.4, Crescent Avenue Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. ..Defendants O.A.No.1230 and 1231 of 2017: 1.Gandhinagar Education Society Rep.by its Secretary AR Ramaswamy, (Kumararajah Muthiah Hr.Sec.School Campus) No.4, Crescent Avenue Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020. 2.AR.Ramaswamy, Secretary, Gandhinagar Education Society, (Kumararajah Muthiah Hr.Sec.School Campus) No.4, Crescent Avenue Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020. ..Applicants/Defendants (in O.A.Nos.1230&1231 of 2017)
2
vs
M.A.M.R.Muthiah, Treasurer and Executive Committee Member, The Gandhinagar Education Society, “Chettinad House” Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai- 600 028. ..Respondent/Plaintiff (in O.A.Nos.1230&1231 of 2017)
O.A.No.1230 of 2017:
Original Application praying that this Hon'ble court be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the Respondent, his men, servants or agents or anyone claiming under him from in any manner covening the Executive Committee Meeting of the Gandhi Nagar Education Society on 20.12.2017 or on any other date pursuant to the notie dated 09.12.2017, pending disposal of the suit.
O.A.No.1231 of 2017:
Original Application praying that this Hon'ble court be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the implementation of or acting upon of the result of the election for the Executive Committee and the office bearers of the Gandhi Nagar Education Society held on 1.12.2017 pending disposal of the suit.
A.No.2491 of 2017:
1.Dr.Meena Muthiah, Wife of late M.A.M.Muthiah Chettiar, Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai- 600 028
3
2.Mr.V.Vaidhyanathan, Son of late Vaithisubramaniya Iyer, No.26/73, Venkatakrishna Road, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai- 600 028 3.Mr.V.K.Ramarao, Son of V.Suryanarayana Rao, M-36/3, 7th Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai- 600 090 4.Mr.G.Annamalai, Son of A.Ganapathy, New No.4, Somasundaram Avenue, Sakthi Nagar, Porur, Chennai- 600 116 5.Mr.M.Seetharaman Son of S.Muthuswamy Old No.4, New No.7, Appavoo Gramani, second Street, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 6.D.V.Venkatraman, Son of D.V.Venkateswaran Old No.31, New No.4, Third Cross Street, Ramakrishnan Nagar, Chennai -28. 7.S.Sasipraba Daughter of Sethuraman, No.27, Teachers Colony, Adayar, Chennai- 20. 8.L.Arumugam, Son of Loganathan, 40, I cross St., R.K.Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai -41 9.Mr.V.S.Sukumar, “Soundaram” 78, 4th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Chennai – 20 10.Mr.V.S.Ravikumar, V.S.Flat-1, 2nd Floor, 95, 4th Main Road,
4
Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Chennai- 20 11.Mr.V.Jayaraman, Son of Vaithiyasubramaniaiyer, No.l31, Chamiers Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai- 600 028 12.Dr.R.M.Arumugam, Son of A.R.Ramasamy, Door No.6, Gandhi Nagar 3rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Chennai – 20 13.G.K.Balasubramanian, Son of G.R.Krishnamurthy, A-1, Shree Durga Apartment, No.185, R.K.Road, Mandaiveli, chennai -28 ..Applicants/Proposed defendants 3-15 vs 1.M.A.M.R.Muthiah, Treasurer and Executive Committee Member, The GandhiNagar Education Society, “Chettinad House” Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28 ..Respondent/Plaintiff 2.The Gandhinagar Educational Society, Repd by its Secretary AR.Ramaswamy, (Kumararajah Muthiah Hr.Sec.School Campus) No.4, Crescent Avenue Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Chennai -20 3.AR.Ramasamy, Secretary, (Kumararajah Muthiah Hr.Sec.School Campus) No.4, Crescent Avenue Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adayar, Chennai -20 ..Respondents/Defendants 1 & 2 Application praying that this Hon'ble court be pleased to implead the applicants herein as party defendants 3-15 in the suit.
A.No.4018 of 2017:
L.Muthukrishnan S/o.PL.M.Lakshmanan 1C, Sea Shells Apartments, No.31, Beach Road, Kalashetra Colony, Beasant Nagar, Chennai- 600 090 ..Applicant/3rd Party
5
versus
1.M.A.M.R.Muthiah,
Treasurer and Executive Committee Member, The Gandhinagar Education Society, “Chettinad House”, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai- 600 028
..1st Respondent/Plaintiff
2.The Gandhinagar Education Society Represented by its Secretary AR.Ramaswamy, (Kumararajah Muthiah Hr.Sec.School Campus), No.4, Crescent Avenue Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020
..1st Respondent/Plaintiff
3.AR.Ramaswamy Secretary, (Kumararajah Muthiah Hr.Sec.School Campus), No.4, Crescent Avenue Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020
..Respondents 2 & 3/Defendnats 1 & 2
Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to implead the applicant herein as the party defendant including all the other members of the 1st respondent society viz., 1)Smt.Geetha Muthiah, 2)Mr.M.A.M.M.Annamalai, 3)Smt.V.Valliammai, 4)Mr.V.Chandramoleeswaran, 5) Mr.A.Subramanian, 6)Mr.V.Palaniappan, 7)Mr.T.Thenappan, 8) Mr.RM.Palaniappan, 9)Mr.G.Ayyappan, 10)Mr.M.Nagarajan, 11) Mr.P.K.Ramananand, 12)Mr.B.Vijaynallendran as party defendants in the above suit.
These applications coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:
CS.No.300 of 2017 had been filed by M.A.M.R.Muthiah, Treasurer and Executive Committee Member of the Gandhi Nagar Education Society, against the Gandhi Nagar Education Society, represented by its Secretary, AR.Ramaswamy and against AR.Ramaswamy, seeking for declaration that the notice dated 5.4.2017, convening a Executive Committee
6
Meeting and the Annual General Body meeting of the 1st Defendant Society to be held on 28.4.2017 is null and void and violative of the Memorandum of the 1st Defendant Society and the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants from in any manner, convening any Executive Committee meeting or Annual General Body Meeting, relating to passing of accounts of statements of the Society and School for the financial year 2015-2016 and subsequent years, till the annual accounts and statements of income and expenditure, including supporting documents are dealt with, verified by the Treasurers and audited by an independent Auditor and for permanent injunction, restraining the convening of any Executive Committee Meeting or General Body Meeting till an independent Auditor verifies and audits the annual accounts and for costs.
7
have an opportunity to personally verify and vouch the individual expenditure vouchers and without the same, the accounts had been finalised for the Financial Year 20152016 and consequently, seeking permission to verify the accounts to inspect and counter sign the vouchers and for appointment of an independent auditor and related reliefs.
carry out inspection, extended time further and also gave one further chance. But, however, according to the Plaintiff, he was not actually given the vouchers for verification, but a statement of income and expenditure was given and he felt that as a Treasurer, that was inappropriate for him to examine. In the mean while, there were also proceedings by the Registrar of Societies and there was an urgent need to conduct elections. Since the demand for appointment of an auditor before finalising the statement of accounts and further demand not to convene the meeting without finalising the account only helped in frustrating the activities of the Society.
8
protracted. In the mean while, while the applications were pending, A.No.2491 of 2017 came to be filed by 13 Applicants and they sought to implead themselves as the proposed Defendants 3-15 in the suit. Similarly, A.No.4018 of 2017 also came to be filed by one Applicant, L.Muthukrishnan, seeking to implead himself and 12 other members of the 1st Defendant Society, as party Defendants to the suit.
9
other hand, it was much focussed in preventing any order being passed. They did not participate during the hearing of the various applications mentioned above. They did not file applications to implead themselves in the pending applications. But, they were silent spectators and used the applications filed by them as a leverage to complain that though the impleading applications had been filed, they were not being properly heard. This was without enlightening the court as to how they would assist the court in the on going litigation.
support of both the applications proclaim that the Applicants are very much interested in the functioning of the Society. But, however, their intentions run contrary adverse to such proclaims. I hold, even before going into
10
the merits of the suit and even before discussing further issues, which have been vehemently argued in OA.No.1230 and OA.No.1231 of 2017, that the Applicants in A.No.2491 of 2017 and A.No.4018 of 2017, have no bona fide intentions, but filed the applications only with the sole objective of frustrating the judicial proceedings. I hold that the affidavits filed are only hollow pleadings and no purpose would be served by entertaining them.
11
harmony and such unity and harmony can be fostered only when people in the administration, practice unity and harmony even though there may be differences among themselves. Consequently, at the very threshold, I am not prepared to countenance the impleading applications and holding them to lack bona fide, A.Nos.2491 of 2017 and A.No.4018 of 2018 are to be dismissed.
“6. All the applications filed in the suit including application filed to implead other members of the Society as party/defendants are all kept open for further arguments if deemed necessary, which situation the Court hopes would not arise in view of the following Order:-
(a) By consensus, the said notices dated 08.11.2017 calling for the Executive Committee Meeting and Annual General Body Meeting on 01.12.2017 are validated by this Court and the Executive Committee Meeting and the Annual General Body Meeting of the Gandhinagar Education Society shall be held as scheduled on 01.12.2017 at the respective timings at the same
12
venue. Issues have been raised with respect to the agenda which had been placed for consideration by the members. All the agenda which have already been placed are retained. '
“8. The Members may conduct themselves during the meeting in a manner befitting the dignity of the Society and it is also hoped that the Members would also uphold the dignity of the post which the Hon'ble Judge held.”
“9. ... The Chairman and the Judge Observer shall jointly declare the results of the elections on the same day. ”
Accordingly, a report had also been filed and the Judge
Commissioner had also forwarded in sealed covers his report with respect to the Annual General Body Meeting and also with respect to the Executive Committee Meeting.
13
Mr.M.A.M.M.Annamalai had been elected as Vice President and Mr.M.A.M.R.Muthiah had been elected after elections as Secretary and Mr.L.Muthukrishnan had been elected after elections as Joint Secretary and Mr.V.Palaniappan had been elected after election as Treasurer.
14
category and life member category have been improperly elected as the general body did not have an opportunity to actually elect them. It was also further stated that the contested posts of Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer have been elected by the Executive Members, who formed the Electorate and not by the General Body.
to be examined, is Rule IV(a) of the bye laws, which is as follows:-
“IV.a. The Management of the Society shall vest
15
in an Executive Committee of 21 members, 5 elected from among the ordinary members, 7 from among the life members and 9 from among the donor members, at a meeting of the General Body held every 3 years for the posts of One President, One Vice President, One Secretary, One Joint Secretary, One Treasurer and 16 Committee Members.”
interpreted by Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned senior counsel for the Applicant in both the applications and by Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned senior counsel and Mr.T.Mohan, the learned counsel for the Respondent.
has relied on the above Rule IV(a) and stated that the Rule IV(a) stipulated that the Executive Committee shall consist of 21 members and out of 21 members, there shall be 7 from among the life members and 9 from among the donor members. According to him, this choice of 7 and 9 from among the
16
life members and donor members should have been exercised by the General Body as a whole. Merely because there were only 7 members totally available and 8 members totally available, they cannot be declared as elected without the General Body having a say in the same.
on the other hand, termed this interpretation as unviable
and in this particular instance, bye laws is impracticable. According to the learned senior counsel in the present case, there were 8 donor members alone available. There were 9 vacancies, of which 8 expressed willingness to participate as Executive Committee Members. Elections from and out of donor members would be a wasteful exercise. Even though one of the members votes, he stands to be elected. There cannot be an election when there are no contestants. There were 8 donor members and all of them are eligible to be selected and there were 8 vacancies and consequently, the Judge Commissioner had very correctly stated that all members are elected. There was no contest or no other candidate challenging those 8 members. Putting them to vote would have no consequence at all. A similar argument was argued with respect to life members.
17
taken by the Judge Commissioner is to be upheld and accordingly, it is upheld.
18
adopted leading to a candidate, who has been selected, to be other wise declared as non elected, then the procedure can be looked into by this court. But, the Applicant herein has not questioned his own case in crossing the first stage of being elected without opposition as a donor member to the Executive Committee. Thereafter, he lost the elections for the post of Secretary and has come to court. This exposes himself. This cannot be permitted.
19
vested with the Court unless it is ultravires the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act or shocks the conscience of the Court. There is a tendency to some times have an ambiguous bye law or rule inserted so that it facilitate the interpretation to suit convenience and may be invoked in times of necessity. Rule IV(a) apparently has been worded similarly a little ambiguously. If at all that has to be changed, it is for the General Body to look into it and it is for the Registrar of Societies to approve the same. The Court cannot go into that aspect. I therefore decline to take up that aspect.
Respondent/ Plaintiff has relied on 1994 4 SCC 225 (Morgan
Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had held that suits filed at the penultimate quer should be viewed carefully since injunction granted would cause immense hardship and administrative inconvenience. This was with respect to meetings of Board of Directors. Mr.AL.Somayaji, learned senior counsel has stated that the present case is also similar to that.
2008 4 SCC 171 (Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had held that if a candidate had participated in a selection process, he cannot thereafter turn around and question the procedure adopted. In the present case also, the Applicant had been the beneficiary of being chosen as
20
Executive Committee Member in his capacity as donor member, but was chosen to be a Executive Committee member without any election. He directly became the Executive Committee Member because of the exact number of vacancies and there being no contest among the donor members. Having obtained that benefit, he cannot turn around and say that the donor members and life members should have been elected by the General Body. I find no merits in this argument.
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2017.
DL/13.02.2018 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for impleading society members as third parties is bona fide or filed with the objective of frustrating judicial proceedings.
Whether the General Body must be given an opportunity to vote for director candidates when all available candidates voluntarily accept the appointment without contest.
Whether a member who was previously elected without opposition can later challenge the selection procedure for other contested posts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick DasReferred¶104
1994 4 SCC 225 · Who else cites this
Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and othersReferred¶107
2008 4 SCC 171 · Who else cites this
The Gandhinagar Education Society
AR. Ramaswamy
Dr. Meena Muthiah
L. Muthukrishnan
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
