Karnataka High Court
Dr P P Maiya vs Nnf Karnataka on 4 August, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
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
2. DR. VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/AT ASHIRWAD MATERNITY AND
CHILDREN HOSPITAL
SHARAN MAGAR
GULBARGA-585103.
3. DR. DEVRAJ RAICHUR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT SHUSHRUTHA MULTI
SPECIALITY HOSPITAL,
PUNE-BENGALURU ROAD
VIDYANAGAR,
HUBLI-680021.
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:
JUDGMENT
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.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff
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
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
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.
3. The plaintiffs in the suit vehemently contend
that when the things stood thus, defendant Nos.1 to 3
vide e-mail dated 19.07.2022 at 5 p.m., sent by the
Interim Committee calling for an Extraordinary General
Body Meeting on 24.07.2022 with agenda to change the
Election Commissioners which per'se is void ab-initio null
and void. Further, the Extraordinary General Body
Meeting which was called by the defendant Nos.1 to 3
was attended only by 44 members out of 820 members
which is against the byelaws of the plaintiffs Society
which mandates attendance of minimum of 1/3rd
members to continue the Extraordinary General Body
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.
4. It is also contended that as per the Bye Law it is
only an elected body which can call for an Extraordinary
General Body Meeting and the Interim Committee has
no powers to decide or to call for a Extraordinary
General Body Meeting which was schedule on
24.07.2022 as the task assigned to Interim Committee
is clearly specified and the committee cannot oversteps
beyond the task that has been assigned to the Interim
Committee by a General Body Meeting held on
30.03.2022.
5. It is also contended that, the Interim Committee
is perpetuating its illegal actions by further appointing
Dr.Banapurmath and Dr.Swarna Rekha Bhat the
defendant Nos.4 and 5 who have been allegedly
appointed as new Election Commissioner and illegally
constituted Election Commissioners and issued a fresh
calendar of events by notification dated 05.08.2022 and
prescribed the date for nomination, declaration of valid
nomination, withdrawal of nomination, period of code of
conduct, e-voting and lastly declaration of result
ultimately on 10.09.2022.
6. In the meanwhile, the Election
Commissioner appointed by Annual General Body
Meeting held on 28.08.2021 have gone ahead and
completed the process of Election, wherein totally 368
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
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.
7. The plaintiff has also filed an application
praying the Trial Court to restraining defendant Nos.6 to
8 from representing the plaintiffs Society as office
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.
8. The defendants appeared and filed the
written statement and adopted written statement as
objections to the I.A particularly by defendant
Nos.1,5,6,7 and 8. The defendants in their written
statement have contended that Dr.Prashanth Gowda
claiming himself to be President to NNF Karnataka State
Chapter, he is neither the President nor a member
eligible to contest the post of President of the Society
and as such the entire presentation of plaint is a total
mis-description which has been done deliberately in
order to obtain interim orders. It is contended that the
plaintiffs Society constituted on 31.01.2017 and upon
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
9. It is contended that, if any election process
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
and same is not in accordance with Section 15 and 16 of
Societies Registration Act.
10. It is also contended that, though earlier
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
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.
11. The counsel in support of his argument has
relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court passed in
CS(original OS 414/2020) and brought to notice
paragraph No.21 wherein discussed with regard to the
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
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.
12. Per Contra the counsel appearing for
respondent in his argument vehemently contend that
General Body Meeting was held on 28.02.2021 and on
the same day Election Commissioners were also
appointed and Interim Committee was constituted on
30.03.2022 only to consider the affairs of the Society
should be fair. The counsel also vehemently contend that
an extraordinary meeting was called and appointed
Interim Committee and Bye Law itself says mode of
conducting of meeting and Election of office bearers. The
contention that Election was conducted by Interim
Committee and the material clearly discloses that, 3rd
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.
13. The counsel also vehemently contends that
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
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.
14. In reply to the argument counsel for the
appellant would vehemently contend that, though
Election Commissioners were appointed in terms of the
General Body Meeting but they have not conducted the
Elections and they issued the calendar of event, but not
conducted elections before the term was closed and in
terms of the calendar of event, nominations were to be
filed in the month of February and elections process
should be completed on or before 31.03.2022. But not
conducted the Election, no fresh calendar of events has
been published for the Election. If already elected in
terms of the earlier calendar of events, no question, but,
the same was not done and Elections were conducted
subsequently, no fresh calendar of events has been
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.
15. Having heard learned appellant counsel and
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:
1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
allowing filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 in
coming to the conclusion that, plaintiff has made
out prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss if an application is rejected and
whether it requires an interference by this Court
exercising the appellate jurisdiction?
2) What Order?
Point No.1:
16. Having considered the material on record,
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
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
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
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.
17. It is also the contention of the defendant that
intimation was sent to calling for an online emergency
Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Society on 24th
Sunday vide intimation dated 19.07.2022 and General body
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
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
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
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.
18. Having perused the resolution dated
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
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
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
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:
19. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
