Kerala High Court
Charlie Jacob vs P.K. Jaganathan on 11 April, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
CRP No.874 of 2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
CRP NO. 874 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2018 IN CMA NO.18 OF 2018 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS NO.78 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN CMA/PETITIONERS IN
IA/DEFENDANTS IN OS:
1 CHARLIE JACOB,
AGED 59 YEARS
PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE VOLLEYBALL ASSOCIATION,
S/O.CHACKO, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAMTHOTTATHIL
HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM-2.
2 NALAKATH BASHEER,
AGED 56 YEARS
SECRETARY,KERALA STATE VOLLEBALL ASSOCIATION, S/O
N.C.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT NOOR MAHAL,PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM.
3 CHARLIE JACOB,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O CHACKO,RESIDING AT LAMTHOTTATHIL
HOUSE,ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM 2.
4 NALAKATH BASHEER,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O N.C.MOHAMMED,RESIDING AT NOOR
MAHAL,PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.
M.R.HARIRAJ
SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL
SMT.L.LAKSHMI OMANAKUTTAN
SRI.P.A.KUMARAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN CMA/RESPONDENT IN IA/PLAINTIFF IN OS:
P.K. JAGANATHAN
AGED 62 YEARS
CRP No.874 of 2018 2
S/O.P.M.RAMANUNNY, 5, DPVS APARTMENT, KANNOTHUMCHAL
ROAD, CHOVVA, KANNUR 670006.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE
SRI.P.J.FRANCIS
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2024, THE COURT ON 11/4/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP No.874 of 2018 3
V.G.ARUN J.
-------------------------------------
CRP No.874 of 2018
---------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April 2024
ORDER
The revision petitioners are the defendants in OS No.78 of 2018 on the files of the Additional Munsiff, Kannur. The suit was filed by the respondent challenging the decision of the Executive Committee of the Kerala State Volleyball Association (Hereinafter referred as 'the State Association'), suspending the respondent from the State Association. The essential facts are as under;
The respondent is the member of the Kannur District Volleyball Association and the elected representative to the State Association for the period 2017 to 2021. The revision petitioners are the then President and Secretary of the State Association. The Executive Committee of the State Association, vide its resolution dated 06/08/2017 suspended the respondent from the State Association alleging anti-Association activities and communicated the decision to the respondent as per letter dated 05/09/2017. Thereupon, the respondent filed OS No.78 of 2018 seeking to declare the resolution of the State Association, by which he was suspended, as null and void and to restrain the defendants from CRP No.874 of 2018 4 obstructing the respondent from attending the meetings of the State Association. On receipt of notice in the suit, the revision petitioners entered appearance and filed IA No.963/2018 raising a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit on the ground that as per Clause 52 of the Constitution (Bye-laws) of the State Association, the dispute involved in the suit ought to be resolved through arbitration. The learned Munsiff, after detailed consideration rejected the objection and held the suit to be maintainable. The appellate court having dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioners against the order of the trial court, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondent.
3. As the term of the State Association, of which the respondent was a member, was only upto 2021, the issue raised in this Civil Revision Petition has become academic. Even then considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to decide the matter on merits.
4. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, in the light of Clause 52 of the State Association Bye- laws, providing for arbitration of all kinds of disputes, the courts below committed illegality in finding the suit filed by the respondent CRP No.874 of 2018 5 to be maintainable.
5. Clause 52 of the Bye-laws, the interpretation of which would help in resolving the dispute, reads as under;
" The Executive Committee will appoint an Arbitrator or Arbitrators to hear and dispose disputes/conflicts. All the disputes between affiliated units, association and affiliated units, affiliated units and clubs, among clubs, players or officials or any other disputes under the Association shall be decided by reference to Arbitration alone as mentioned herein under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996".
6. A close scrutiny of the above Clause would show that it does not specifically mention about the disputes between the members of the General Body and the Executive Committee of the Association. Therefore, the question is whether such a dispute would fall within the meaning of the words " any other disputes under the Association" mentioned in Clause 52. The answer to the above question can only be in the negative in view of the Clause 26(a) of the Bye-laws, as per which any action taken by the State Executive Committee can only be challenged before the General Body. The General Body is the Supreme Authority as far as an association is concerned. The members having consciously conferred the General Body with appellate power and having disputes between members of the General Body and the Executive CRP No.874 of 2018 6 Committee not made the subject matter of arbitration, the courts below are right in holding that Clause 52 is not applicable as far as the dispute raised in the suit is concerned. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN Judge dpk CRP No.874 of 2018 7 APPENDIX OF CRP 874/2018 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.4.2018 IN IA A1 963/2018 IN OS 78/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR.