Mens Congress vs Abhisek Debnath & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3722 Cal

   24
13.07.2021

mb

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

C.O. No. 1227 of 2021

(Via video conference)

South Eastern Railway Mens Congress

-Vs.-

Abhisek Debnath & Ors.

Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Amal Kumar Saha ...for the petitioner

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya ...for the opposite party no. 1

Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee ...for the opposite party nos. 2 to 7

The petitioner has challenged an order

whereby the appellate court refused to grant stay

of operation of an order whereby the trial court

had not only granted an injunction restraining

the present committee of the petitioner-union

from functioning, but directed formation of an ad

hoc committee for looking after such functioning.

Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, as supported by learned counsel

appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 7,

submits that the direction to form an ad hoc

committee was entirely beyond the reliefs sought

by the plaintiff in the suit and could not be

granted at the injunction stage in any event.

That apart, by placing reliance on the documents

annexed to the present revisional application,

learned counsel harped on the contention that

the allegations made in the suit, regarding alleged

irregularities in the holding of election, had no

basis.

It is argued, by placing reliance on the

minutes of the meetings dated March 20, 2020

and March 21, 2020, that one of the grounds of

challenge to the election, being that the defendant

nos. 1 to 6 (opposite party nos. 2 to 7 herein),

could not have been participated in the election

and/or selected for any of the posts of office

bearers in view of non-renewal of their

membership, is belied by such minutes. By

placing specific reliance on Item No. 4 of the said

minutes, it is categorically submitted that

defendant nos. 1 to 6 had admitted that the last

working committee meeting before the purported

elections was held on February 24 and February

25 of 2020 at Bokaro Steel City.

It is further contended, by placing reliance

on the annexures to the revisional application,

that the said meeting held on February 24 and

February 25, 2020 had indeed accepted the

defendant nos. 1 to 6 and renewed their term for

a further two years with effect from the date of

expiry of the previous term.

However, learned counsel appearing for the

opposite party no. 1 contends that the letter

written by the defendant no. 1 itself contradicts

that there was any agenda for renewal of the

tenures of defendant nos. 1 to 6 in respect of the

meeting held on February 24 and February 25,

2020. As such, it is argued that there could not

have been any such extension at the relevant

point of time.

That apart, it is contended by opposite party

no. 1 that the Constitution of the Union-in-

question was itself violated, insofar as Clause 7(8)

of the said Constitution, annexed at page 58 of

the revisional application, which clearly provides

that the General Council or the Working

Committee meeting held just before the Biennial

General Meeting shall fix the date, the venue and

the details of the Biennial General Meeting. It is

argued that, as reflected even from the copy of

such purported minutes relied on by the

defendant nos. 1 to 6, there was no such fixation

of date, time and venue, let alone details of the

general meeting which was to follow.

From the records, it appears that the

relevant communications relied on by both the

parties, particularly the letter dated May 22,

2020, clearly indicate that, in view of the

pandemic situation, the meeting was held

virtually. The finding of the trial court regarding

the purported minor discrepancy due to alleged

admission of the defendants that there was both

virtual and physical meeting, is irrelevant for the

purpose of considering as to whether, prima facie,

the provisions of the Constitution of the Union

were violated.

That apart, the balance of convenience and

inconvenience was in favour of refusing to grant

injunction regarding the functioning of the

committee, since such an injunction would stall

even the routine work of the Union, thereby

directly affecting the rights of the members

thereof.

Moreover, it is found from the trial court's

order, which was impugned before the appellate

court and stay of operation of which was refused,

that the trial court directed an ad hoc committee

to be formed. Such formation of an ad hoc

committee was a third case made out by the trial

court and beyond the reliefs sought either in the

suit or in the injunction application. Moreover,

the concept of such formation of ad hoc

committee does not find place within the four

corners of the Constitution of the Union.

It is pointed out by both the parties that, at

an ad interim stage, a co-ordinate Bench of this

Court was pleased to fix an ad interim

arrangement whereby the present elected

committee would continue its functioning, but the

defendant nos. 1 to 6 shall be restrained from

participating therein. Such interim arrangement

appears to be reasonable to this Court as well,

since staying the entire functioning of the elected

committee would bring the representation of the

Union and its daily functioning to a staggering

halt. Hence, the appellate court ought to have

taken into consideration the above factors while

refusing to grant stay of operation of the

impugned order.

The judgments relied on before the appellate

court primarily pertained to prohibitory

injunctions. In the event a restraint order is

stayed at the inception of the appeal preferred

against it, the same would tantamount to

allowing the appeal by permitting the restrained

parties to carry on the activities, from which they

restrained. However, in the present case, the trial

court not only passed an order of prohibitory

injunction, which would stall entire functioning of

the Union, but it has directed an ad hoc

committee to be formed, which was of a positive

nature by way of a mandatory direction. Hence,

the ratio laid down in the judgments cited before

the appellate court are not applicable to the

present case.

Moreover, the prima facie case made out by

the plaintiff has to stand on a much stronger

footing for the courts to interfere with the internal

affairs of an elected body or association at a

preliminary stage of the suit.

In such view of the matter, C.O. No. 1227 of

2021 is disposed of by modifying the impugned

order dated April 27, 2021, passed by the District

Judge at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas, to

the extent that the operation of the order dated

March 24, 2021, passed by the Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Sixth Court at Alipore, District-

South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 676 of 2020,

shall remain stayed, with the rider that the

defendant nos. 1 to 6 shall not participate in the

functioning of the newly elected union/

committee, till disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 84 of

2021. However, the portion of the trial court's

order, whereby an ad hoc committee was formed,

shall remain stayed till disposal of the

miscellaneous appeal. It is further clarified that

the regular functioning of the last-elected

committee, barring defendant nos. 1 to 6

(opposite party nos. 2 to 7 herein), shall continue

as usual, of course, subject to the result of the

miscellaneous appeal.

The ends of justice would be sub-served if

the appellate court is directed to dispose of the

appeal expeditiously. Hence, the transferee

court, to where the appeal, bearing Miscellaneous

Appeal No. 84 of 2021, has now been allocated, or

the court in charge of the same, as the case may

be, shall positively take up Misc. Appeal no. 84 of

2021 for final hearing on the next date fixed by

the appellate court and shall conclude the

hearing and dispose of the appeal finally within a

fortnight therefrom.

It may be noted that the findings and

observations made above were arrived at for the

limited purpose of deciding the present revisional

application and shall not influence the appellate

court or the trial court in any manner at any

further stage of the appeal/suit. The courts

below shall adjudicate the matters, sub judice

before them respectively, independently on their

own merits, without being so influenced.

The courts below as well as the parties shall

act on the written communication of the learned

advocates for the parties, to be accompanied by a

server copy of this order, without insisting upon

prior production of certified copy thereof.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this

order, if applied for, be made available to the

parties upon compliance of all necessary

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)