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
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
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
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
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.
