Madras High Court
O. Panneerselvam vs All India Anna Dravida Munnetra ... on 25 August, 2023
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Original Side Appeal Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
and
CMP. Nos.7421, 7423, 7424, 7426, 7427, 7429, 7519, 7521, 7536, 7547,
7556, 7557, 7558 and 7563 of 2023 and 11641 of 2023
---
O.S.A. No. 68 of 2023
O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer, AIADMK
having office at No.226
Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Appellant
Versus
1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. The General Council
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
3. Edapadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
AIADMK
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 69 of 2023
O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer, AIADMK
having office at No.226
Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Appellant
Versus
1. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. The General Council
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
3. Edapadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
AIADMK
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 70 of 2023
O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer, AIADMK
having office at No.226
Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
.. Appellant
2/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Versus
1. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. The General Council
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
3. Edapadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
AIADMK
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 71 of 2023
R. Vaithilingam .. Appellant
Versus
1. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
3. O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
4. Edapadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 72 of 2023
R. Vaithilingam .. Appellant
Versus
1. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
3. O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
4. Edapadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 73 of 2023
J.C.D. Prabhakar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
.. Appellant
4/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Versus
1. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
3. O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
4. Edappadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 74 of 2023
Paul Manoj Pandian @ P.H. Manoj Pandian .. Appellant
Versus
1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
3. O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
4. Edappadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 75 of 2023
R. Vaithilingam .. Appellant
Versus
1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
3. O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
4. Edappadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
.. Respondents
6/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
O.S.A. No. 76 of 2023
Paul Manoj Pandian @ P.H. Manoj Pandian .. Appellant
Versus
1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
3. O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
4. Edappadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 77 of 2023
J.C.D. Prabhakar .. Appellant
Versus
1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
2. General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
3. O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
4. Edappadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 78 of 2023
J.C.D. Prabhakar .. Appellant
Versus
1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
2. General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
rep. by its Presidium Chairman
having office at No.226/275, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
3. O. Panneerselvam
Co-ordinator/Treasurer
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
4. Edappadi. K. Palaniswami
Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents
O.S.A. No. 68 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
4 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 251 of 2023 in C.S. No. 62 of 2023
O.S.A. No. 69 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
4 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 250 of 2023 in C.S. No. 62 of 2023
O.S.A. No. 70 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
4 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 249 of 2023 in C.S. No. 62 of 2023
O.S.A. No. 71 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 237 of 2023 in C.S. No. 56 of 2023
O.S.A. No. 72 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in O.A. No. 221 of 2023 in C.S. No. 56 of 2023
O.S.A. No. 73 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in Application No. 220 of 2023 in C.S. No. 55 of 2023
O.S.A. No. 74 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in Original Application No. 164 of 2023 in C.S. No. 47 of
2023
O.S.A. No. 75 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in Original Application No. 222 of 2023 in C.S. No. 56 of
2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
O.S.A. No. 76 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in Original Application No. 235 of 2023 in C.S. No. 47 of
2023
O.S.A. No. 77 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in Original Application No. 219 of 2023 in C.S. No. 55 of
2023
O.S.A. No. 78 of 2023:- Original Side Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule
9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated
28.03.2023 passed in Original Application No. 236 of 2023 in C.S. No. 55 of
2023
O.S.A. Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 2023
For Appellants : Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel
& Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Senior Counsel
for Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi
For Respondents : Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel
& Mr. Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel
for Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar
& Mr. E. Balamurugan
O.S.A. Nos. 71, 72 and 75
For Appellants : Mr. C. Manishankar, Senior Advocate
for Mr. S. Elambharathi
For Respondents : Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel
& Mr. Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel
for Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar (R1, R2 & R4)
& Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi (R3)
O.S.A. Nos. 74 and 76 of 2023
For Appellants : Mr. Abdul Saleem, Senior Counsel
for Mr. S. Elambharathi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/140
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
For Respondents : Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel
& Mr. Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel
for Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar
& Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi
O.S.A. Nos. 73, 77 and 78 of 2023
For Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sriram, Senior Counsel
for Mr. S. Elambharathi
For Respondents : Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Counsel
& Mr. Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel
for Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar (R1, R2 & R4)
& Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi (R3)
COMMON JUDGMENT
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
I. OVERVIEW OF THE APPEALS
All these appeals arise from a common order dated 28.03.2023 passed
by the learned Judge in the Original Applications filed by the appellants
herein. For ease of reference, the challanges made in these appeals are
tabulated below:
OSA No. Challenge made Prayer made in Original Application
68/2023 O.A. No. 251 of 2023 to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the in C.S.No. 62 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., implementing/ enforcing the resolution
O.Panneerselvam nos.3,4,5 & 6 already passed on 11.07.2022 by
the second respondent pending disposal of the
suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
69/2023 O.A.No.250 of 2023 in to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the C.S.No. 62 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., conducting any election to the post of general
O.Panneerselvam secretary on 26.03.2023 or any other date,
pursuant to the notice dated 17.03.2023
pending disposal of the suit.
70/2023 O.A.No. 249 of 2023 to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the in C.S.No. 62 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., implementing / enforcing the special resolution
O.Panneerselvam dated 11.07.2022 of the 2nd respondent pending
disposal of the suit.
71/2023 O.A.No. 237 of 2023 to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the in C.S.No. 56 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., conducting any election to the post of General
R.Vaithilingam Secretary on 26.03.2023 or any other date,
pursuant to the notice dated 17.03.2023,
pending disposal of the suit
72/2023 O.A.No. 221 of 2023 to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the in C.S.No. 56 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., implementing/ enforcing the resolution Nos. 3,
R.Vaithilingam 4, 5 and 6 dated 11.07.2022 of the second
respondent, pending disposal of the suit
73/2023 O.A.No.220 of 2023 in to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the C.S.No. 55 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., implementing/ enforcing the resolution Nos. 3,
J.C.D.Prabhakar 4, 5 and 6 dated 11.07.2022 of the second
respondent, pending disposal of the suit
74/2023 O.A.No. 164 of 2023 to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the in C.S.No. 47 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff implementing/ enforcing the resolution Nos. 3,
viz., Paul Manoj 4, 5 and 6 dated 11.07.2022 of the second
Pandian @ respondent, pending disposal of the suit
P.H.Manoj
Pandian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
75/2023 O.A.No. 222 of 2023 to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the in C.S.No. 56 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., implementing/ enforcing the special resolution
R.Vaithilingam dated 11.07.2022 of the second respondent,
pending disposal of the suit
76/2023 O.A.No. 235 of 2023 to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the in C.S.No. 47 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., conducting any election to the post of General
Paul Manoj Secretary on 26.03.2023 or any other date,
Pandian @ pursuant to the notice dated 17.03.2023,
P.H.Manoj pending disposal of the suit
Pandian
77/2023 O.A.No. 219 of 2023 to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the in C.S.No. 55 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., implementing/enforcing the special resolution
J.C.D.Prabhakar dated 11.07.2022 of the second respondent,
pending disposal of the suit
78/2023 O.A.No. 236 of 2023 to pass an order of ad interim injunction
filed by the in C.S.No. 55 of 2023 restraining the respondents, their men, agents
applicant / and persons claiming through them from
plaintiff viz., conducting any election to the post of General
J.C.D.Prabhakar Secretary on 26.03.2023 or any other date,
pursuant to the notice dated 17.03.2023,
pending disposal of the suit
The appellants have questioned the common order passed by the learned Judge
in dismissing the original applications filed by them, for the following reliefs:
(i)to pass an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents,
their men, agents and persons claiming through them from implementing/
enforcing the resolution nos.3,4,5 & 6 already passed on 11.07.2022 by the
second respondent pending disposal of the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
(ii)to pass an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents,
their men, agents and persons claiming through them from conducting any
election to the post of general secretary on 26.03.2023 or any other date,
pursuant to the notice dated 17.03.2023 pending disposal of the suit.
(iii)to pass an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents,
their men, agents and persons claiming through them from implementing /
enforcing the special resolution dated 11.07.2022 of the 2nd respondent
pending disposal of the suit.
2.The appellants herein viz., Mr. O.Panneerselvam, Mr. R.Vaithilingam,
Mr. JCD. Prabhakar and Mr. Paul Manoj Pandian @ P.H.Manoj Pandian, have
instituted four separate suits in C.S. Nos. 62 of 2023, 56 of 2023, 55 of 2023
and 47 of 2023 respectively. Pending the same, they preferred the original
applications for the reliefs as stated supra. All the original applications have
been dismissed by the learned Judge, vide common order dated 28.03.2023,
which is impugned herein.
3.For the purpose of appreciation of the pleadings in these appeals, the
suit in C.S. No. 62 of 2023 is taken as a lead case and the facts, which led to
filing of the said suit are as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
II. PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES
Plaint averments
3.1. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant namely All India
Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, (hereinafter shortly referred to as
“AIADMK”) is a recognised political party in the State of Tamil Nadu, having
founded by late Dr. M.G. Ramachandran in the year 1972. It is registered with
the Election Commission of India and is one of the leading political parties in
the State. The party is governed by its bye-laws, which have been amended
from time to time.
3.2. The plaint further proceeds to state that the plaintiff enrolled
himself as a primary member in the AIADMK party during the year 1977 and
in the year 1980, he was appointed as Ward Member in Ward No.18 of
Periyakulam Town, Theni District. Subsequently, he was holding various posts
in the party, prominent among them are the Post of Chief Minister of the State
thrice in the years 2001, 2014 and 2016, Leader of Opposition during the year
2006, and Finance Minister during the year 2017. According to the plaintiff,
the AIADMK party had won majority of the general elections held in the State
and had an extremely successful track record as one of the major political
parties in the State. The party had been voted to power and ruled the State
during the year 1977-1985 under the leadership of M.G. Ramachandran and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
for the years 1991-1996, 2001-2006 and 2011-2021 under the leadership of
Dr. J. Jayalalithaa until her death in the year 2016. After the death of the
General Secretary, the Party was under the leadership of the plaintiff and the
defendant No.3 jointly. At present, the AIADMK is the main opposition party
in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
3.3. Referring to the organisational structure of the party, the plaintiff
stated that the primary membership or cadre of the AIADMK comprises of
more than 1.5 crore members. The AIADMK is the only political party where
the highest executive post of General Secretary was elected directly by the
entire primary membership of the party. As per the bye-laws of the party, the
General Secretary so elected is vested with the power of amendment of the
bye-laws by convening a general council. This is a set up akin to the election
of the President of the Country. The General Secretary of the party is also
empowered to relax some of the conditions or make exception to any of the
rules and regulations of the party, which are morefully set out in the bye-laws.
According to the plaintiff, the two most prominent leaders of the party viz., (i)
Dr. M.G. Ramachandran and (ii) Dr. J. Jayalalithaa, held the post of General
Secretary during their life time.
3.4. The plaint also proceeds to state that on 05.12.2016, the then
General Secretary Dr. J. Jayalalithaa died. Thereafter, the plaintiff was sworn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
in as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and he continued until 15.02.2017. The
plaintiff would further state that during the life time of Dr. J. Jayalalithaa,
when she was unseated from the post of Chief Minister on account of legal
impediments, it was the plaintiff who was permitted to hold the post of Chief
Minister twice till such impediments were resolved. This, according to the
plaintiff, was in recognition of the plaintiff's loyalty to the party's ethos and his
vast administrative and political experience. In this fashion, the plaintiff was in
the post of Chief Minister during 2001-2002 and 2014-2015.
3.5. It was further stated by the plaintiff that soon after the death of the
General Secretary of the party Dr. J. Jayalalithaa, certain unfortunate
developments have taken place and in order to resolve the same, the plaintiff
moved the Election Commission of India by filing a Dispute Case No. 2 of
2017 under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
The Election Commission of India, by order dated 22.03.2017 freezed the
election symbol (two leaves) of the party. This turmoil was effectively
resolved at a meeting of the General Council of the party held on 12.09.2017,
after issuing a sui generis notice dated 28.08.2017 as per the bye-laws. The
notice was issued taking note of the fact that the organisational structure of the
Party was in a limbo due to various splinter groups of the party recognised by
the interim order of the Election Commission of India. In the meeting held on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
12.09.2017, several resolutions were passed and amendments were made to the
bye-laws of the party. As per the same, Dr. J. Jayalalithaa, former General
Secretary, would be the "eternal General Secretary of the party" and that, the
post of General Secretary would be abolished. In the place of General
Secretary, two new posts were created namely Co-ordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator. While the plaintiff was elected as a Co-ordinator by the General
Council, the third defendant was elected as the Joint Co-ordinator. That apart,
various amendments were made to bye-laws of the party to ensure a joint
leadership of the party. Such election of the post of Co-ordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator was through voting by the General Council. Thus, the
organisational structure has been substantially changed with the creation of
two new posts namely Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. The amendments
broadly categorise that the powers vested with the then General Secretary will
be conveyed and vest with the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator for
efficient governance of the party. As per the bye-laws, the tenure of the
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator will be for five years. Therefore, the first
tenure of the plaintiff as Co-ordinator and the third defendant as Joint
Co-ordinator having commenced on 12.09.2017, was till 12.09.2022.
Subsequently, on 23.11.2017, the Election Commission of India passed an
order allotting the “Two leaves” symbol to the party. Thus, on account of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
timely action by the plaintiff with his leadership and statesmanship, the
turmoil in the party has been resolved and the party had successfully
transitioned into a stable joint leadership.
3.6. The plaintiff also stated that from September 2017 to May 2021,
the AIADMK party remained in power in the State under the Joint leadership
of the plaintiff and the third defendant. In the Government, the third defendant
was the Chief Minister and the Plaintiff was the Deputy Chief Minister.
Whereas, in the party, the plaintiff was the Co-ordinator and the third
defendant was the Joint Co-ordinator. In the meantime, the order dated
23.11.2017 passed by the Election Commission of India was challenged before
the Delhi High Court by filing WP (C) No. 10725 of 2017 and batch, but they
were dismissed on 28.02.2019, with some observations.
3.7. The plaint further proceeds to state that for the first time after the
post of General Secretary was abolished and the posts of Co-ordinator and
Joint Co-ordinator were created, the party contested the legislative assembly
elections in the State under the leadership of the plaintiff and third defendant,
in May 2021 and the AIADMK emerged as the largest Opposition Party. On
01.12.2021, in order to comply with the observations made by the Delhi High
Court in the order dated 28.02.2019 passed in WP (C) No. 10725 of 2017 and
on the request made by the primary members of the party, the Central
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Executive Committee of the party passed a special resolution amending Rule
20A(ii), Rule 43 and 45 of the bye-laws. As per the said amendments, the
electorate for the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator would be the
primary members and not the members of the General Council alone. In other
words, before amendment, Rule 20A(ii) envisages that the Co-ordinator and
Joint Co-ordinator shall be elected by members of the General Council, but
after amendment, their election will be by the primary members of the party.
Similarly, Rule 43, prior to amendment, envisaged that the General Council
will have powers to frame, amend or delete any of the rules of the constitution
of the Party. This was amended to the effect that even though the General
Council will have powers to frame, amend or delete the rules, the election of
the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator by all the primary members cannot be
subjected to any change by the General Council or in any manner, amended as
it forms the basic structure of the party. Likewise, Rule 45 conferred power to
the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator to relax or make alterations to the
rules, but after amendment, though the power to relax or make alterations of
the rule was retained, the requirement that the Co-ordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator should be elected only by all the primary members of the party
was retained and it cannot be amended or changed. According to the plaintiff,
the resolution so passed in the Executive Committee meeting on 01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
was also communicated to the Election Commission of India. As per the said
amendments, on 06.12.2021, a party election was held, in which the plaintiff
as well as the third defendant jointly contested and they were elected
unopposed as Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. The result of the election
was also notified to the Election Commission of India and it was duly signed
by the plaintiff and the third defendant. During April 2022, the party
organisational elections were held under the joint leadership and supervision
of the plaintiff and the third defendant, result of which was intimated to the
Election Commission of India through a letter dated 29.04.2022, jointly signed
by the plaintiff and the third defendant. Similarly, on 30.05.2022, the plaintiff
and third defendant signed Form AA and Form BB in relation to intimation of
names of Party Candidate to Rajya Sabha elections. These facts stand
testimony to the fact that the resolutions passed in the Executive Committee
meeting on 01.12.2021 were duly acted upon.
3.8. While so, on 02.06.2022, the plaintiff and the third defendant
jointly called upon a regular meeting of the General Council on 23.06.2022,
which is akin to an ordinary Annual General Meeting. There was no fixed
agenda for the meeting dated 23.06.2022, in which general administrative
affairs of the party were discussed. However, shortly after the meeting, the
third defendant started to act indifferently with a view to wrest control of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
party. This led to serious concerns among the party cadres and they were upset
and angry inasmuch as the agreement to continue the joint leadership among
the plaintiff and defendant No.3 was sought to be undone by the acts of the
third defendant.
3.9. On 12.06.2022, ahead of the General Council meeting scheduled
for 23.06.2022, an announcement was issued by the Head Office inviting party
head-office bearers and District Secretaries to attend a committee meeting at
the party head quarters on 14.06.2022. Accordingly, the meeting was held on
14.06.2022 and by way of press meet, Thiru. D. Jayakumar, a member of the
General council has stated that a demand for single leadership had been
mooted in the meeting on 14.06.2022 by few District Secretaries, but the head
quarters news bulletin issued by the party did not record any such statement
regarding the intention of the cadres for a single leadership. Thus, the third
defendant unilaterally introduced an agenda in the General Council meeting on
23.06.2022 by garnering support from few disgruntled members for election of
a single leader. Such attempts were made by the third defendant knowing fully
well that they are contrary to the amended bye-laws and conventions of the
party. Therefore, the plaintiff wrote a letter dated 19.06.2022 to the third
defendant highlighting serious concerns regarding the decision taken note to
invite special invitees to the scheduled General Council meeting. In the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
letter, reference was also made to the attempt to deviate from the past practise
followed by the party cadres and the amendments made to the bye-laws. The
plaintiff therefore suggested that the scheduled meeting on 23.06.2022 be
postponed to a different date at a suitable time and venue with the consent of
both the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. But such suggestions made in
the letter dated 19.06.2022 were simply brushed aside by the third defendant
through a letter dated 21.06.2022. On the same date namely 21.06.2022, the
plaintiff received an e-mail from the AIADMK party cadre office in which 23
draft resolutions proposed to be placed before the General Council to be held
on 23.06.2022 were listed. On 22.06.2022 at 2.55 pm, the plaintiff also sent an
e-mail to the AIADMK party head office conveying his approval for the 23
draft resolutions to be placed before the General Council meeting. In such
circumstances, one Mr. Shanmugam, a member of the General Council, filed
C.S. No. 111 of 2022 before the learned Judge, along with O.A.Nos. 327 and
328 of 2022 seeking interim injunction restraining the third defendant from
convening the meeting on 23.06.2022. In the said suit, the plaintiff herein as
well as the defendant No.3 were arrayed as parties. However, the learned
Judge declined to grant any interim order and ordered notice returnable by
11.07.2022, against which O.S.A. No. 160 of 2022 was filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
3.10. On 23.06.2022, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order
permitting to conduct General Council meeting at 10.00 am on 23.06.2022,
deliberate upon the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution and take
decision as per the Rules and Bye-laws with regard to the same, however, not
to take any decision other than the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution.
The members of the General Council were also granted liberty to discuss any
other matter, but no decision shall be taken with regard to the same.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in OSA No. 160 of 2022, SLP (C) No. 11237 of 2022 was filed by
the third defendant, besides some of the supporters of the third defendant filed
SLP (C) Nos. 11578 and 11579 of 2022.
3.11. On 23.06.2022, after the order passed by the Division Bench of
this Court, the General Council meeting was held, in which the plaintiff was
handed over a booklet containing 23 resolutions. On going through the same,
the plaintiff noticed that the first resolution was contrary from the draft
resolution proposed and approved by him in his e-mail dated 22.06.2022.
This, according to the plaintiff, was in gross violation of the order dated
23.06.2022 by this Court. The 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution was
wilfully altered and placed before the General Council. Further, in
disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court, a new resolution was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
introduced bereft of authorisation by the plaintiff, as required. As per the new
resolution, Mr. Tamil Magan Hussain was appointed to the post of Permanent
Presidium Chairman, which is in direct conflict with the order passed by this
Court. Curiously, the Permanent Presidium Chairman, soon after his
appointment, without any authorisation by the plaintiff, as a Coordinator,
announced that the next General Council meeting will be held on 11.07.2022.
Further, in the meeting, the plaintiff was heckled and gheraoed; slogans were
raised against him; and bottles hurled, by those who were instigated by the
third defendant. In the commotion, a purported requisition for convening the
next general council meeting was submitted to the Presidium Chairman instead
of submitting it to the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator as contemplated in
the bye-laws.
3.12. The Plaint further unfolds that on 26.06.2022, a notice was
circulated by the Party Head Quarters Secretary calling for the meeting of
Chief Executive Officers of the party to be held on 27.06.2022. This notice did
not bear the signature of either the Co-ordinator or the Joint Co-ordinator. The
Plaintiff responded to the notice by stating that any meeting convened by the
party officials without the consent of the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
is against the bye-laws of the party. The plaintiff also sent a detailed report on
27.06.2022 to the Election Commission of India under Section 29A(9) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Representation of People Act, 1951 informing the Commission about the
unauthorised and unlawful manner in which meetings were conducted and
resolutions were passed. The third defendant also sent a letter dated
28.06.2022 to the Election Commission of India stating that the amendments
proposed have not been ratified by the General Council and therefore, those
amendments are no longer in force and lapsed.
3.13. On 01.07.2022, the plaintiff received a notice inviting him to
participate in the General Council meeting to be held on 11.07.2022. In the
notice it was stated that on 23.06.2022, the General Council meeting did not
approve the amendments made to the bye-laws and therefore, the concept of
Co-ordinator or Joint Co-ordinator system of functioning does not exist. Such
a statement in the notice dated 01.07.2022 is contrary to Rule 20A(iii) of the
bye-laws wherein it is clearly stated that the tenure of the Co-ordinator and
Joint Co-ordinator is five years and it was also unanimously approved by the
party members on 05.12.2021. As per the amendment, the tenure of the
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator shall exist till 05.12.2026. Therefore, the
plaintiff has a vested right to hold the post of Co-ordinator until 05.12.2026.
Even assuming without admitting that the election held in December 2021 was
invalid having been elected by the General Council first on 12.09.2017, the
first tenure of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 as Co-ordinator and Joint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Co-ordinator would have extended to 12.09.2022. Therefore, the notice dated
01.07.2022 contains misleading statement which is contrary to records. It is in
those circumstances, on 05.07.2022, the plaintiff filed a suit in C.S. No. 118 of
2022 for the following reliefs:
"(i) For a declaration to declare that convening the General
Council Meeting on 11.07.2022, or any other date, without the joint
authorisation of both Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator is illegal, and
in contravention to the bye laws of the first defendant party, more
particularly rule 20 A (iv) of the rules and regulations of AIADMK party
(ii) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from
convening the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other
date without the express authorisation of both the Coordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator.
3.14. Pending Civil Suit No. 118 of 2022, the plaintiff also filed
Original Application No. 368 of 2022 seeking to grant an order of
ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from convening
the alleged General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or any other date without
the express authorisation of both the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
pending disposal of the suit.
3.15. On the same day (i.e.) on 05.07.2022, another suit in C.S. No. 119
of 2022 was filed by a member of General Council by name Vairamuthu along
with an Original Application in OA.No.370 of 2022 for interim injunction.
While so, on the next day, viz., 06.07.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed
an order in SLP (C) No. 11237 of 2022, SLP (C) Diary Nos. 19149 and 19425
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
of 2022 to the effect that the third defendant shall conduct the General Council
Meeting on 11.07.2022 in accordance with law.
3.16. On 07.07.2022, in the suit in C.S. No. 119 of 2022 filed by
Vairamuthu, another application in OA No.379 of 2022 was filed praying to
pass an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from passing
any resolution relating to the abolition of the post of Co-ordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator as they were elected by the primary members of the party for a
term of five years as per bye-laws 20A(ii) and 20A(iii) and consequently direct
the respondents not to implement the resolution/decision relating to item Nos.
3, 4, 5, 6, 7 mentioned in the notice dated 01.07.2022 in the alleged General
Council Meeting which is to be held on 11.07.2022 pending disposal of the
suit.
3.17. On 11.07.2022, the date on which the General Council Meeting
was to be convened, at 9.00 am, the learned Judge pronounced orders in the
Original Applications, declining to grant interim relief. Consequently, the
General Council meeting was held in which various illegal resolutions were
passed converting the leadership structure of the party abolishing the system of
joint leadership under the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator to that of single
leadership under the post of General Secretary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
3.18. The plaintiff thereafter challenged the above said order dated
11.07.2022 passed in O.A. No. 368 of 2022 in C.S. No. 118 of 2022 by filing
SLP (C) No. 12782 of 2022. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 119 of 2022 viz.,
Vairamuthu, also filed SLP (C) Nos. 12784 and 12785 of 2022 challenging the
order dated 11.07.2022 passed in O.A. Nos. 370 and 379 of 2022 in C.S. No.
119 of 2022. By a common order dated 29.07.2022, all the Special Leave
Petitions were disposed of remanding the matter to the learned Judge for fresh
consideration of the issues on merits. On remand, the learned Judge passed a
detailed order on 17.08.2022 in OA No. 368 of 2022 in C.S. No. 118 of 2022
and O.A. Nos. 370 and 379 of 2022 in C.S. No. 119 of 2022 granting interim
relief in favour of the plaintiff.
3.19. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2022, O.S.A. Nos. 227 of
2022, 231 and 232 of 2022 were filed before the Division Bench of this Court.
The Division Bench, by judgment dated 02.09.2022 allowed the appeals and
set aside the common order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Judge, on
the finding that the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator had lapsed for
want of ratification of the amendments on 23.06.2022.
3.20. Challenging the judgment dated 02.09.2022 of the Division Bench
of this Court, the plaintiff as well as the aforesaid Vairamuthu filed SLP (C)
Nos. 15753 of 2022 and 15705 and 15706 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Court. During the pendency of these appeals, an undertaking was given by the
third defendant to the effect that he will not hold any election to the post of
General Secretary. The said undertaking was recorded by order dated
30.09.2022 in the Special Leave Petitions. Subsequently, all the appeals were
taken up for final hearing and by judgment dated 23.02.2023, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court affirmed the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court. However, it was observed that they are not expressing any
opinion as regards the validity of the resolution dated 11.07.2022 passed in the
General Council. According to the plaintiff, even though the order dated
02.09.2022 has been upheld by the common judgment dated 23.02.2023 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the observations made by the Division Bench of this
Court in para No.49 of the order dated 02.09.2022 still continue to be in force.
In other words, the issue as to whether the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator had lapsed or not, has not been dealt with and as such, the
defendants cannot unilaterally assume that the posts have lapsed. In the above
circumstances, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit in C.S. No. 62 of
2023 for the following reliefs:
(i) Declaring that the Resolution Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 passed at
the General Council Meeting of Defendant No. 1 held on 11.07.2022 at
Srivaru Venkatachalapathy Palace, Vaanagaram and consequent
amendments to the byelaws of the Defendant No. 1 (i.e., amendments to
Rules 20, 20A, 20A (1 to 13), 20B, 20C, 43, 45 and wherever the words
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator of Kazhagam appears are changed
as General Secretary of Kazhagam are ultra vires to the bye laws / rules
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
and regulations governing Defendant No.1 and hence, null, void ab initio
and non est.
(ii) Declaring that the Special Resolution passed at the General
Council Meeting of Defendant No. 1 held on 11.07.2022 at Srivaru
Venkatachalapathy Palace, Vaanagaram is ultra vires to the byelaws/rules
and regulations governing Defendant No.1 and hence null, void ab initio
and non est.
(iii) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.3 from
functioning as the Interim General Secretary of the Defendant No.1
(iv) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and their
representatives, employees, agents etc., from convening any General
Council Meeting in a manner contrary to the Party's byelaws and passing
any resolution and taking any decision therein.
(v) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and their
representatives, employees, agents etc., from issuing membership cards to
the primary members of the Defendant No.1 without the joint signatures of
the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator (i.e., Plaintiff and Defendant
No.3)
(vi) Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to revise and
prepare its current voters list of primary members in accordance with its
Constitution/Rules and Regulations
(vii) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 and
its representatives, employees, agents etc., from conducting any election to
the post of General Secretary and any other organisational elections in a
manner contrary to the byelaws of the party.
4. The other three appellants viz., R.Vaithilingam, JCD Prabhakar
and Paul Manoj Pandian @ P.H.Manoj Pandian, had already instituted
separate suits viz., CS.Nos.56 of 2023, 55 of 2023 and 47 of 2023
respectively, raising the same averments as pleaded in the suit in C.S.No.62 of
2023. The third defendant in CS No.62 of 2023 viz., Mr.Edappadi K.
Palaniswami is the fourth defendant in the aforesaid three suits; and for the
sake of convenience, we shall refer him as the third respondent in all these
appeals, as per his ranking in OSA Nos.68, 69 and 70 of 2023. The identical
reliefs sought therein are quoted below for ready reference:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
i) Declaration that the resolutions passed on the General Council
meeting of the 1st defendant held on 11.07.2022 at Srivaru Venkatachalapathy
Palace Vaanagaram being Resolution Nos.3,4,5,6 and the Special Resolution
dated 11.07.2022 passed therein and consequent amendment to the byelaws of
the 1st defendant therein are ultra vires to the Constitution / Rules and
Regulations and byelaws of the 1st defendant and hence void, and non est.
ii) Permanent injunction restraining the fourth defendant from
functioning as the interim General Secretary of the 1st defendant
iii) Permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from convening
any General Council meeting and passing any resolution and taking any
decision therein.
iv) Mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to revise and
prepare its current voters list of primary members in accordance with its
Constitution / Rules and Regulations and byelaws
v) Permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from conducting
any organisational election including the election for the party its General
Secretary.
5. Pending the aforesaid suits, the appellants preferred original
applications seeking ad interim injunctions as detailed at the first instance.
Counter of the respondents / defendants in the lead case
6. On notice, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the respondents / defendants viz., AIADMK party and Edappadi
K.Palaniswami, seeking dismissal of the applications mainly on the ground
that the reliefs sought for in the applications have become infructuous and they
no longer survive for consideration of this Court. It was further stated that the
reliefs sought for in the applications were already sought for in O.A. No. 379
of 2022 and therefore, for the same relief, the applicant cannot file the present
Original Applications. Furthermore, the applicant has suppressed many
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
material particulars while filing the applications and therefore, the applications
deserve to be dismissed. That apart, the description of the parties in the cause
title of the plaint and interim applications are per se against the orders of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1392 to 1397 of 2023. To be
precise, the AIADMK is represented by its Interim General Secretary and not
by Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator as claimed by the applicant. The third
defendant in the suit is the Interim General Secretary of AIADMK and he is
not the Joint Co-ordinator as has been described by the plaintiff.
6.1. The counter affidavit of the respondents/defendants further
proceeds to state that the AIADMK is a party registered under Section 29A of
the Representation of People's Act, 1951 and it is bound only by its Rules and
Regulations. The Rules and Regulations form the basis for relationship
between the party and its members. As per the same, the General Secretary is
the supreme authority and the decision of the General Council is final. The
then General Secretary of the party Dr. J. Jayalalithaa died on 05.12.2016 and
after her death, a General Council meeting was convened by the office bearers
of the party on 29.12.2016 nominating Mrs. V.K. Sasikala as the Interim
General Secretary of the party. Thereafter, differences arose in the party
which led to the members of the General council amending the Rules and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Regulations of the party on 12.09.2017 by which all the functions, which were
being executed by the General Secretary previously, would be executed jointly
executed by the newly created posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator.
The General Council also amended Rule 43, which specifically recites that the
General Secretary would be elected by the primary members, can never be
amended. The Rule was amended to state that the Co-ordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator would be elected by the General Council and not by primary
members. Thus, on the basis of such amendments, the Co-ordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator were elected. In the meeting held on 12.09.2017, while creating
new posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, the General Council also
removed Mrs. V.K. Sasikala from her position and annulled all the decisions
taken by her in her capacity as General Secretary.
6.2. It was further stated by the respondents / defendants that while the
party was under the dual leadership, on 01.12.2021, certain amendments were
made in the Executive Council meeting as to the manner of election of
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. The Executive Council had made certain
amendments to change the mode of election of Co-ordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator from being elected independently and it was also agreed by the
members. A resolution was also passed to that effect and it was placed before
the General Council for approval. Pursuant to such resolution, the elections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
for the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were announced and the
plaintiff and the third defendant were elected without any contest.
6.3. According to the respondents / defendants, on 02.06.2022, the
plaintiff and the third defendant jointly announced that the next General
Council meeting will be held on 23.06.2022. Before convening the General
Council meeting, there were several discussions among the party cadre that the
dual leadership is ineffective and it requires to be changed into that of a single
leadership. The issue was also brought by the cadre to the District Secretaries
in the presence of the plaintiff and the third defendant on 14.06.2022 during
the consultative meeting. After the consultative meeting, a Resolution
Committee of the party held meeting on 16.06.2022 and 18.06.2022 to decide
on the resolutions to be placed before the General Council meeting on
23.06.2022. The meeting clearly unfolded the intention of the cadres to have a
single leadership. In this context, the plaintiff as well as one Mr.
R.Vaithialingam (plaintiff in C.S. No. 56 of 2023) wanted to postpone the
meeting to be held on 23.06.2022, but it was refused by the third defendant.
Taking note of the commotion among the party cadres with respect to the issue
of joint leadership and single leaership, some of the party cadres approached
this Court in which the plaintiff intervened and opposed the grant of police
protection. However, this Court, by order dated 21.06.2022 rejected the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
objections raised by the plaintiff. Notwithstanding the same, the plaintiff had
even approached the Commissioner of Police, Avadi to refuse permission for
the meeting but it was also not considered. At this stage, one Mr. M.
Shanmugam filed C.S. No. 111 of 2022 seeking stay of the meeting to be held
on 23.06.2022, but the learned Judge of this Court did not grant interim stay.
On appeal before the Division Bench on 23.06.2022, it was held that the
meeting shall go on, but no decision would be taken except on the 23
resolutions which had been approved by the plaintiff. According to the
defendants, the 23 resolutions were never agreed jointly by the plaintiff and
the defendants nor the resolution committee concurred with it.
6.4. The respondents / defendants proceeded to state in the counter
affidavit that after the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on
23.06.2022, 2190 members of the General Council submitted written request
to discuss and decide on the single leadership before taking any other item for
consideraiton. In the meeting, majority of the members have clearly expressed
their dissent against the plaintiff herein. The members of the General Council
also submitted written request to discuss the issue of single leadership and to
decide it. In view of such deadlock between the plaintiff and the third
defendant, the Presidium Chairman on the floor of the General Council
announced that the next general council meeting would be convened on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
11.07.2022 at the same venue at 09.15 pm. Thereafter, 2432 members of the
the General Council submitted letter on 24.06.2022 along with the agenda
items that they intended to discuss in the meeting on 11.07.2022. Some of the
office bearers also wanted to discuss on the way forward and accordingly on
26.06.2022 notice for the meeting was issued to all the office bearers. The
plaintiff did not attend the meeting called on 27.06.2022, however, he had
written a letter to the Election Commission of India under Section 29A (9) of
The Representation of People Act in which he misrepresented the facts
relating to the meeting held on 23.06.2022. The third defendant also
communicated to the Election Commission of India on 28.06.2022, listing out
the various events that had unfolded in the meeting on 23.06.2022. According
to the third defendant, since the General Council on 23.06.2022 did not
approve the amendments brought about by the Executive Council on
01.12.2021, the amendments had lapsed and therefore, the elections conducted
to the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, on the basis of such
amendments, can no longer be valid.
6.5. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that as per the prevailing
practice, invitation for the meeting of the General Council was issued on
01.07.2022. On receipt of the invitation, the plaintiff has filed a suit in C.S.
No. 118 of 2022 before the learned Judge and a supporter of the plaintiff has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
filed C.S. No. 119 of 2022. After filing of the suits, the appeal filed by the
third defendant against the order dated 23.06.2022 of the Division Bench,
came up before the Supreme Court on 06.07.2022. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court granted interim stay of operation of the order of the Division Bench and
permitted the meeting scheduled on 11.07.2022. Thereafter, the plaintiff in
C.S. No. 119 of 2022 filed an application for interim injunction restraining the
respondents from passing any resolution relating to the abolition of the post of
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator and not to implement the resolution
relating to item Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 mentioned in the notice dated 01.07.2022
during the General Council meeting to be held on 11.07.2022. In the said
application, orders were reserved and it was to be pronounced at 9.00 am on
11.07.2022. Accordingly, an order was passed dismissing the applications and
permitting the meeting to be proceeded with. The order of the learned Judge
was also taken on appeal.
6.6. The respondents / defendants further stated that in the meantime,
even before the commencement of the meeting on 11.07.2022, the supporters
of the plaintiff assembled outside the party office unlawfully and attacked the
supporters of the defendants mercilessly. They also broke open the door with
arms and damaged the property, stolen several vital documents from the party
office including official records, title documents, bank records, income tax
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
records and other records pertaining to General council meeting. In this
connection, a case in Crime No. 2 of 2022 was registered on 01.09.2022 by the
CB-CID for the offences under Section 147, 148, 454, 380, 409, 427 and 506
(ii) IPC against the supporters of the plaintiff. Inspite of the commotion, the
meeting commenced as scheduled, in which the third defendant was elected
unanimously as the Interim General Secretary and election officers were
appointed for the conduct of election to the post of General Secretary within
four months. The General Council also passed resolutions removing the
plaintiff and other persons who acted against the principles of the AIADMK
party from their basic and primary membership.
6.7. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Supreme Court
of India against the order dated 11.07.2022. By order dated 29.07.2022, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the learned Judge of this
Court for re-consideration. Upon remand, the learned Judge passed an order
dated 17.08.2022 to maintain status quo ante as on 23.06.2022. Aggrieved by
the same, the third defendant filed an appeal against the order dated
17.08.2022 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, by
order dated 02.09.2022 set aside the order of the learned Judge and also
dismissed the interim applications. Once again, the plaintiff filed appeal before
the Supreme Court and by order dated 30.09.2022, the appeals were disposed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
of holding that the status-quo order granted by the single Judge is perverse
inter alia recorded the undertaking given by the third defendant that election
to the post of General Secretary would not be conducted until the appeals are
disposed of. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot at this stage raise the issue
regarding the convening of the General Council meeting.
6.8. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the General
Council had the power to take any action. The plaintiff had received the notice
for the meeting dated 11.07.2022 but chosen not to attend it. Instead, he
instigated his supporters and ransacked the premises of the party head quarters.
The party is a democratic political party in which all the leaders are bound to
follow the Rules and Regulations. The plaintiff can claim no special equity
because of the positions previously he held. He has been removed from the
post on 11.07.2022 and for the past several months, he is not holding any post
in the party. In such circumstances, the question of grant of interim injunction
as prayed for in the applications will not arise. The advisory committee itself
has been abolished by the General council and the plaintiff has no vested right
to continue in any post. With these averments, the respondents / defendants
prayed for dismissal of the original applications filed by the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
III. ORDER UNDER APPEALS
7. On considering the rival submissions made on either side, the
learned Judge concluded that the various issues raised including the enforceability
of the amendments made to the organisational structure and validity of the
resolutions passed in the General Council meeting on 11.07.2022, can be gone
into only during the trial in the suits. However, it was observed that there has
been infraction of Rule 6 which prescribes a 7 days' notice before initiating
disciplinary action. The learned Judge also reasoned that even though the
applicants have made out a prima facie case in their favour in respect of their
expulsion from the party, the balance of convenience did not tilt in their favour
nor any irreparable injury was caused to them. While so, if injunction is granted,
it would cause irreparable injury to the political party concerned and therefore,
the learned Judge rejected the plea of injunction made by the plaintiffs. The
relevant portions of the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge,
are reproduced below:
"Issue No. (a)
......59. As I am prima facie satisfied that Resolution No.3 is valid, the
resolution No.4, 5 & 6 to create the post of Interim General Secretary, to
ppoint Edapadi K.Palaniswamy as Interm General Secretary and to
conduct election for the post of General Secretary, in my view is also
prima facie valid The reason for coming to such a conclusion is that by
resolution No.3, the posts of the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator
have been abolished and the post of General Secretary has been created.
In view of Resolution No.3, a vacuum has been created with regard to the
leadership of the party, such vacuum has to be remedied and hence
Resolution No.6 appointing an Election Committee to conduct the election
for the post of General Secretary will have to follow. The said resolution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
had slatted four months time for such Election Committee to conduct the
election. In the Interregnum period, the party cannot be allowed to
function without a leader. Hence, prima facie there is also no Infirmity in
Resolution Nos.4,5 & 6.
………………………
61. Hence, with regard to issue No.(a) I find no prima facie case has
been made out for grant of interim Injunction from implementing the
resolution Nos.3,4,5 & 6 of the General Council meeting held on
11.07.2022.
Issue No. (b)
..........
66. The issue relating to the said dispute with regard to the special
resolution will have to be examined during the final proceedings in the
Suit. However, I am of the prima facie view that there has been Infraction
of Rule 6 which prescribes a 7 days notice before any disciplinary action.
..........
70. Even though I find a prima facie case in favour of the applicants, I do
not find balance of convenience tilted in their favour or that any
irreparable injury could be caused to them. On the contrary, I am of the
view that if any injunction is granted, it would cause irreparable Injury to
the political party concerned and hence, the injunction sought for against
the special resolution will have to also be rejected.
Issue No. (c)
71. I have already arrived at a conclusion that the applicants
are not entitled for an injunction as against resolution Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6
dated 11.07.2022. After coming to such a conclusion and now granting
an injunction to conduct the election for General Secretary would only
put the political party into more trouble, as it would lead the party
concerned to be without any leader.
72. The contention of the applicants that when a Division
Bench of this Court and also Apex Court had not given any finding on the
issue of lapse of the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator, it is
assumed that the said posts exist even as on today, when such post exist,
there is no necessity to conduct election for the post of General Secretary.
The further contention that if the elections are allowed to be conducted,
the rights of the applicants in the suit would become infructuous. I am not
in agreement with the said contentions raised by the applicants.
73. As I already found that there is a prima facie case in
favour of the respondents in amending the bye-laws and if the election to
the postr of General Secretary is sought to be injucted, thenm it would
affect the functioning of the political party which has been recognised by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
the Election Commission of India without it having a leader. Hence I do
not find any prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable
injury in favour of the applicants, but on the other hand, I find that the
injunction as prayed for is granted, irreparable injury would be caused to
the first respondent, as it would affect the functioning of the political
party which has over 1.55 crores primary members in the State of Tamil
Nadu.
Application in A. No. 1781 of 2023
74. The applicant claims himself to be a member of the
political party. He claims that due to the dispute between the two leaders
of the political party, there has been unrest within the party. Therefore, he
would suggest to appoint two retired Judges of the High Court to conduct
the election for the post of General Secretary.
75. From his pleadings, the statement made across the bar and
also the statement in the written submission it is obvious that he is not
challenging the resolutions abolishing the post of Coordinator and the
Joint Coordinator and reviving the post of General Secretary, since his
request is to conduct election to the post of General Secretary by
nominating two retired High Court Judges. There is no averment
whatsoever as to why the election committee appointed under resolution
No.6, dated 11.07.2022 would not be in a position to conduct the election.
When no such averment is made, I do not find any reasons as to why such
a claim should be entertained. Further, with regard to the dispute inter se
parties in the suit and also of the fact that the suit has not been filed under
representative capacity invoking the provisions of Order I Rule 8, there is
no necessity to implead the applicant for effective disposal of the suit.
Further, I am of the view that the applicant is a rank interloper. In his
pleadings, he has averred that even the internal elections for various
posts have not been held. This pleading is contrary to the facts recorded
by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 02.09.2022,
wherein the Division Bench in clear terms has approved the elections held
to various posts (Refer paras 34 & 35 of the judgment). Hence, there is no
merit in the application and it is liable to be rejected in limine.
Application in A.No. 1726 of 2023
76. This application has been filed seeking to strike out and
amend the plaint. This application has been taken out by the fourth
defendant in the suit. As no counter has been filed by the respondent-
plaintiff, the same is delinked from these batch of applications and the
respondent-plaintiff is directed to file a counter to the said application.
77. In fine,
Application Nos. O.A. Nos. 250, 249, 251, 235, 164, 236, 219,
220, 237, 221, 222 of 2023 in C.S. No. 47, 55, 56 & 62 of 2023 and A.No.
1781 of 2023 are rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed in the original applications, the
applicants / plaintiffs are before this court with the present original side
appeals.
IV. CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSELS
On the side of the appellants / plaintiffs:
8. Mr.Guru Krishna Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant
in OSA.Nos.68, 69 and 70 of 2023 began his submissions by contending that
the approach adopted by the learned Judge in refusing the grant of interim
injunction, was wrong. Adding further, the learned senior counsel submitted
that the learned Judge failed to advert to the submissions put forth by the
appellant regarding the validity of the resolutions passed by the General
Council, rather erroneously proceeded to reject the interim reliefs prayed for,
by placing reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in the previous
round of litigation concerning interlocutory relief. It is also submitted that
such reliance placed by the learned Judge is uncalled for and irrelevant,
because what the Apex Court was concerned in that round of litigation, was
only about the validity of convening of the meeting and not with the validity of
the resolutions passed on 11.07.2022. Thus, the learned Judge proceeded on
the wrong premise that once the meeting was validly convened, the resolutions
that were passed would also consequently be valid, which is fallacious.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
8.1. The learned senior counsel further submitted that when the basis
of attack against the validity of the resolutions was that the resolutions were
contrary to the established basic structure of the Party as was envisioned by
the Founder, the learned Judge ought to have tested the resolutions in the light
of the basic structure of the Party and given a finding on merits, but he rather
left the issue of basic structure of the Party to be determined at the stage of
trial. Even from the facts, there is glaring evidence to show that the resolutions
were passed to single handedly overtake the Party, the learned Judge ought to
have at least for that reason intervened and prevented autocracy in a
democratic party.
8.2. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the General
Council’s power to amend the bye-laws is not absolute / plenary power. Rule
43 of the bye-laws contained an express limitation that the General Council
cannot amend bye-laws in a way to alter the basic structure of the Party. In
support of the same, he placed reliance on the decisions in (i)Prasanna
Venkatesa Rao v. K. Srinivasa Rao [(1931) 33 LW 113 (Mad)] and
(ii)Inderpal Singh v. Avtar Singh [(2007) SCC Online Raj 535]. Adding
further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the basic structure of the
Party is that the election to the highest position in the Party i.e., General
Secretary is to be done by its primary members, which means, the primary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
members are the heart of the Party. From 2017, this basic structure was altered,
the Executive Committee on 01.12.2021 thought it fit to restore the basic
structure by making amendments to the effect that the top most position in the
Party viz., Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator will be elected by the primary
members of the Party and the same was fully given effect to, and election took
place accordingly. This amendment was even communicated to the Election
Commission of India. However, the respondents conveniently omitted to
submit all the events that happened between 06.12.2021 and 02.06.2022, in
between these dates, all the decisions were taken by the Executive Committee
including calling for election to the District Secretaries; the 3rd respondent
wanted to hijack the Party administration and for that purpose, he came up
with the theory that the creation of posts of Co-ordinator and Joint
Co-ordinator did not get approval of the General Council and hence, has
lapsed. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, this is nothing but an
attempt to take undue advantage of what could at best be a ministerial act and
such a procedure is nowhere found in the Party’s bye-laws.
8.3. The learned senior counsel also submitted that a bye-law is a
contract between the members, and the General Secretary cannot be subjected
to the decision of the General Council. If the Party members are dissatisfied
with the General Secretary's functioning, the only recourse is to vote against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
them in the next election unanimously. There is no provision to remove the
General Secretary merely because there is a majority in the General Council in
favour of the removal. The learned senior counsel would further contend that
the power of the General Council is solely to implement the resolutions passed
by the Executive Committee. But, it is entirely erroneous to claim that the
General Council is superior to the General Secretary and that, it can remove
the highest authority in the Party. On the contrary, the bye laws says, if any
member of the General Council is subjected to disciplinary action, they can be
removed by the General Secretary.
8.4. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the will of the
primary members of the Party was reflected on 06.12.2021 when they elected
the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. Based on their election, both the
individuals called for General Council meetings, conducted elections to the
General Council, determined party policies, and elected members to the Rajya
Sabha. The primary members expressed their willingness to elect them for a
term of five years until 2026. Consequently, the appellant has a vested right to
hold office in accordance with the will of the primary members, which has
been illegally frustrated by the third respondent. It is also submitted that the
respondents' claim that 2432 members were circulated the agenda for the
11.07.2022 meeting, but there is no material evidence to substantiate the same;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
only a proposal to convene the General Council meeting is present; and that,
there is no document demonstrating majority approval of that resolution. The
learned senior counsel also submitted that the concept of "functional
deadlock" is derived from company law, where the general body of
shareholders intervenes when the Board of Directors cannot function. In the
instant case, the primary members of the Party should constitute the equivalent
of the general body of shareholders, but the respondents fallaciously claim that
the General Council represents the primary members. It is further submitted
that a letter dated 28.06.2022 written by the third respondent to the Election
Commission of India states that all decisions within the Party must be taken
collectively; and that the appellant's election was not ratified by the General
Council and hence, the 3rd respondent also cannot function independently,
resulting in a deadlock. A careful reading of this letter demonstrates that the
deadlock theory is based on the notion of lapse, which is yet to be decided and
therefore, the same cannot be put against the appellant for refusing injunction.
8.5. In addition, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhat
Shah and another in Appeal (Civil) No.8266 - 8267 of 2001 dated
04.12.2001, wherein, it was observed as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
"Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court have kept in view and
applied their mind to the relevant settled principles of law governing the grant
or refusal of interlocutory injunction in trade mark and trade name disputes.
refusal to grant an injunction in spite of the availability of facts, which are
prima facie established by overwhelming evidence' and material’ available’ on
record justifying the grant thereof, occasion a failure of justice and such injury
to the plaintiff as would not be capable of being undone at a latter stage. The
discretion exercised by the Trial Court and the High Court against the
plaintiff, is neither reasonable nor judicious. The grant of interlocutory
injunction to the plaintiff could not have been refused, therefore, it becomes
obligatory on the part of this Court to interfere."
He also placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and other High Courts, to substantiate his contentions:
(i)T.P.Daver v. Lodge Victoria [(1964) 1 SCR 1 : AIR 1963 SC 1144]
(ii)Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & others [SLP
(C)No.18934 of 2008 dated 11.09.2009]
(iii)Ambalal Sarabhai v. Phiroz H. Antia [AIR 1939 Bombay 35]
(iv)N.F.Barwell v. Jackson and others [ILR (1947) ALL 758].
Thus, the learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Judge erred in
dismissing the original applications filed by the appellant seeking interim
injunction by the order impugned herein, which will have to be set aside.
9. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant in OSA Nos.68, 69 and 70 of 2023 would further submit that the
Special Resolution passed at the General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022,
which purported to expel the appellant and other senior members of the Party
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
for the alleged anti-party activities, is illegal and void. Adding further, the
learned senior counsel submitted that the Special Resolution violated the
principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Without framing of any
charges with specific allegation and clarity, the appellant and other senior
members were thrown out from the Party as if the General Council was a lynch
mob. Such act of expulsion was done by the 3rd respondent in order to wreck
vengeance against the appellant and others. Furthermore, the Special
Resolution was not a part of the agenda for the meeting, and the appellant had
no prior notice in this regard. It is also submitted that it is settled principle that
the members should be duly informed in advance of what is sought to be
discussed on a specified date of meeting and when any discussion is made
pertaining to a subject not in the agenda, every member is entitled to object to
the same, whileso, the subject matter of expulsion which is a serious matter
that adversely affects the interest of the appellant and other members ought to
have been stated in the Agenda well before the meeting. Further, the Judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in OSA No. 160 of 2022 between the
same parties to this lis, has highlighted the importance of Agenda and for the
reason that no harm should cause to any party by discussing any subject not in
the Agenda, this Court intervened and restrained the respondents not to
entrench into discussing any subject not part of the Agenda already circulated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
to the appellant. When that being so, the act of expelling the appellant without
including it in the Agenda shows the high handedness of the respondents. The
learned senior counsel further emphasized that expulsion of this nature
requires due inquiry, proper notice of the charges, and an opportunity to
defend oneself. He also referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court
in Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh v. Additional Registrar, Co-op Societies
[1961 SCC Online All 265 : AIR 1962 All 439], wherein, it was held that "if
notices had not been issued to all the members of the club, the meeting was
illegal and its proceedings are void".
9.1. The learned senior counsel further submitted that under the party's
bye-laws, the General Council has not been conferred with powers to expel a
member, that too, against the Co-ordinator of the party. Under Rule 20A, the
power to take disciplinary action under the Party's bye-laws clearly vest only
with the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator. Thus, no such power has
been conferred upon the General Council under Rule 20A, Rule 35 or any
other provision of the bye-laws. The General Council is only "a creature of the
rules" of the party and it cannot perform any function that the bye-laws do not
authorize it to perform. The learned senior counsel also made reference to Rule
35 of the Party's bye-laws, which outlines an elaborate procedure that were
scrupulously drafted to ingrain principles of natural justice at every stage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
before imposing any punishment in disciplinary proceedings, even on ordinary
members of the Party. These procedural safeguards are particularly important,
when expelling senior members occupying high positions within the Party's
organizational structure. When the founder of the Party deemed it necessary to
incorporate the principles of natural justice when subjecting any member to
disciplinary action, these principles cannot be taken away. To substantiate the
same, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and
others [(2012) 4 SCC 407]. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel
that the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2023 does not
specifically address the expulsion of the appellant. It would set a dangerous
precedent to confer all powers to small organs of the party. In a democratic
system, dissent is essential, and the appellant exercised his right to dissent, for
which he is getting penalized without following proper procedures and
adherence to the principles of natural justice.
9.2. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the learned
Judge on a misreading of bye-law 35 presumed that General Council is
supreme in disciplinary matters and is powerful enough to even remove the
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. It is also submitted that when it is
admitted that no opportunity of being heard was afforded before removal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
injunction ought to have been granted. The learned senior counsel would
submit that the learned Judge was not pleased to record balance of
convenience in favour of the appellant for the reason that his further
continuance would only further the existing deadlock in the Party. This
reasoning is erroneous, because the whole theory of deadlock has been
engineered by the 3rd respondent to retain his control and grip in the Party and
to exclude others and he cannot be permitted to be benefited out of it. Further,
the deadlock reasoning was given by the Apex Court when it was concerned
with the question of validity of the meeting and the same cannot be adopted by
the learned Judge without giving attention to the fact that in the present case,
validity of the resolutions is in question. Moreover, if the injunction is not
granted, the inner party democracy will be stifled and that, for the AIADMK
Party to function as a vibrant opposition party, it is essential that its office
bearers and members do not succumb to predatory takeover by any individual
unlawfully. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the appellant
is put to irreparable loss for the reason that he is completely excluded from the
party administration being senior member and his right to function as elected
legislator from AIADMK party is seriously compromised and furthermore, his
right to contest in election to the post of General Secretary is taken away. The
learned senior counsel also asserted that if the appellant was given an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
opportunity to be heard, he could have addressed the erroneous assumptions
made by the General Council. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision
in Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab SEB [(2010) 13 SCC
216], wherein, it was held that non-adherence to natural justice itself
constitutes prejudice, and proof of prejudice is not required. The learned senior
counsel also referred to the decision in Gujarat Pottling Co. Ltd v. Coca Cola
Co. [(1995) 5 SCC 545]. With these submissions, the learned senior counsel
submitted that if the injunction is not granted, the appellant would be put to
irreparable injury and therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal and setting
aside the order of the learned Judge passed in the original applications.
10. Mr.C.Manishankar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appellant in OSA Nos.71,72 and 75 of 2023 submitted that the appellant
Mr.R.Vaithilingam, is an active primary member of the party for more than 49
years and he was holding the post of Kazhaga Steering committee member for
the period 2013-2017; from 2013, he was holding the post of Kazhaga
Organisation Secretary and from 2017, he was holding the post of Kazhaga
Deputy Co-ordinator. The appellant was also a Member of the Legislative
Assembly elected from Orathanadu in the years 2006-2011, 2011-2016, and
2016-2021 and he was also Minister in the year 2011 to 2016 of the Party,
besides nominated to the Rajya Sabha in the year 2016. In such capacities, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
has introduced various schemes to the downtrodden people. However, without
any material, he was removed from the membership by the impugned
resolutions dated 11.07.2022 passed by the General Council.
10.1. The learned senior counsel has submitted that there were three
reasons given by the learned Judge for upholding the validity of Resolution
No.3 passed by the General Council on 11.07.2022 viz., one was that the Apex
Court had upheld the convening of the General Council meeting; the second
reason was that General Council had power to amend the bye-laws and
majority of the members of the General Council voted in favour of the
resolution; and the third was that from the above two reasons, no prima facie
case is made out, the finding regarding balance of convenience and irreparable
loss need not be gone into. With regard to the resolution Nos. 4 to 6, the
learned senior counsel submitted that no independent examination was made
by the learned Judge, but the same were mechanically upheld on the notion
that the resolutions had to be brought in to fill the vaccum. It is also submitted
that the learned Judge failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellant
herein.
10.2. By way of elaboration, the learned senior counsel submitted that
the reasons for invalidating Resolution No.3 are that, firstly, the Executive
Committee resolution dated 01.12.2021 was acted upon immediately and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
followed until the impugned resolutions of the General Council were passed
and hence, the same cannot now, be termed as lapsed and that, it was passed
without any authority. Secondly, the claim for single leadership from the Party
cadres as alleged, was not substantiated with empirical data. Lastly, the power
of General Council to amend the bye-laws is undisputed, but their power to
amend is subject to the limitation that they must not violate the basic structure
of the Party.
10.3. Adding further, the learned senior counsel would contend that
there is no provision in the bye-laws which contemplate that the resolutions of
the Executive Committee have to be placed before the General Council and if
not done, the resolutions will get lapsed. Even otherwise, ratification would
only be a ministerial act. The 3rd respondent is answerable as to why the
resolution passed by the Executive Committee was not placed before the
General Council on 23.06.2022. Moreover, even if the resolutions passed by
the Executive Committee did not get approved on 23.06.2022, it cannot lead to
automatic lapse as it could still be placed in a subsequent General Council
Meeting. The appellant and the 3rd respondent acted according to the
amendments made to the bye-laws by the Executive Committee, which could
be evident from the fact that elections to the office bearers were called for and
conducted by them jointly. Thus, when the amendment was acted upon for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
whole year, it cannot now be contended by the 3rd respondent that it has lapsed
for want of ratification. The resolution passed abolishing the post of
Co-ordinator effectually overturned the will of the primary members of the
Party, who are the heart and soul of the Party. When the primary members
unanimously voted for the appellant to the post of Co-ordinator of the Party, it
is impermissible to defeat their will without consulting the primary members
of the Party. In support of the same, he relied on the decision of the Apex
Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Rajdgad [2012 4 SCC
407] in which it was held as follows:
“ 34. In a democratic institution, like ours, the incumbent is entitled to
hold the office for the term for which he has been elected unless his
election is set aside by a prescribed procedure known to law or he is
removed by the procedure established under law. The proceedings for
removal must satisfy the requirement of natural justice and the decision
must show that the authority has applied its mind to the allegations made
and the explanation furnished by the elected office bearer sought to be
removed.”
10.4. The learned senior counsel also submitted that Resolution No.3
reads that “at the request of basic members of Kazhagam”, post of General
Secretary would be restored. This is an assertion out of thin air unsupported by
any empirical data. There ought to have been some referendum/expression of
opinion by primary members for bringing such a change in the party structure
to ascertain their true wishes, but that was absent. The General Council is a
mere unit of the Party which is elected by a section of the primary members of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
the Party and it cannot be considered to be superior than the whole primary
members of the Party which is 1.5 crores in number. Moreover, if General
Council is taken to be representing the primary members of the Party, then, the
person to the post of General Secretary could also be very well elected by the
General Council itself and there would be no need for primary members to
elect the General Secretary. This so called supremacy of the General Council
was sought to be curtailed by the Founder of the Party which is exactly the
reason why the top most position of the Party i.e., General Secretary/
Co-ordinator was made immune from any action stemming from the General
Council. In this regard, he relied on the Judgment of the Bombay High Court
in Ambalal Sarabhai v Phiroz H. Antia [AIR 1939 Bom 45] in which, it was
held as follows:
“ 5. To deprive a gentleman of his position as a member of a Social
Club is certainly a very serious and grave measure, it is entirely different
where a Club refuses admission without a hearing or without giving
reasons to a person-seeking membership, and the analogy of the
procedure laid down in the rules in regard to admission cannot be applied
to rules providing for expulsion. Undoubtedly a Club is an autonomous
institution and a Court of law will not lightly interfere with its action in
expelling a member unless it has violated the recognized rales of
procedure in that connection or those of natural justice.”
10.5. With respect to Resolution nos.4 to 6, the learned senior counsel
submitted that the amendment in 2017 made it clear that the post of General
Secretary is abolished and for the times to come, Dr. J. Jayalalithaa will be the
“eternal” General Secretary. The very use of the term “eternal” signifies that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
there could be no person ever to grow to the stature of the then Chief Minister
of Tamil Nadu to hold the post of General Secretary of the Party. Drawing the
attention of the Court to the resolution No. 8 of the General Council Meeting
held on 12.09.2017, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
earlier, the General Council had deprecated the practice of appointment of
V.K. Sasikala as the Interim General Secretary and it was specifically resolved
that all the actions taken by her in that capacity would be null and void.
Therefore, the General Council cannot now be permitted to take a
diametrically opposite stand and support the creation of the post of Interim
General Secretary.
10.6. Coming to the amendment of the bye-laws so as to prescribe
extraordinary eligibility conditions for one to contest elections to the post of
General Secretary, the learned senior counsel contends that it clearly shows the
3rd respondent’s mala fide intention to take over the Party. The condition to be
proposed and seconded by the District Secretaries would eventually boil down
the fact that only a person who is to the liking of the members of the General
Council could alone contest in the elections. These conditions could further
encourage unfair attempts to influence and control District Secretaries. More
importantly, the basic feature of the Party right from its inception is that any
primary member who has been a member of the Party continuously without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
any break, can aspire to become the General Secretary, but, that is defeated
with the imposition of stringent conditions, such as, one must have served for
a minimum period of 5 years continuously in some posts of the Party
Headquarters to contest in election. Thus, the 3rd respondent has engineered
his route to take over the Party by two ways viz., one to bring in self-serving
resolution to impose stringent conditions to prevent primary members from
contesting thereby virtually making it impossible for anyone to challenge him
in elections and the second, to drive away potential rival candidates by
expelling them. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Judge
passed the order impugned herein, which will have to be set aside, according
to the learned senior counsel.
11. Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant in OSA Nos.74 and 76 of 2023 would submit that the appellant viz.,
Paul Manoj Pandian @ P.H.Manoj Pandian, has a long-standing history of
involvement with the first respondent party and has made significant
contributions to society throughout his career. He has been a dedicated
member of the party for over 30 years, holding various positions within the
party and even being nominated to the Rajya Sabha for a six-year tenure in
2010. Currently, he serves as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Nadu, representing the Alangulam Constituency after winning the 2021
elections with the First Respondent's ticket. The learned senior counsel would
also submit that the appellant's commitment to public service is evident
through his numerous initiatives aimed at benefiting the community. That
apart, he has been an active member of the privilege committee of the Tamil
Nadu Legislative Assembly and holds the position of Deputy Secretary of the
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam legislature party in the assembly.
He is also the organizing secretary of the First Respondent party and serves as
a member of the Advisory Committee. Furthermore, the appellant is a
practicing Advocate of this Court, which demonstrates his commitment to both
legal and political spheres.
11.1. Adopting the aforesaid arguments, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant in OSA Nos.74 and 76 of 2023 would further
submit that the reason why Dr. M.G. Ramachandran did not want to give
excessive powers to the General Council is that in the past he himself was
evicted from the General Council of the DMK Party despite there being
unwavering support from the primary members. Therefore, the appellant
believed that the General Council should not have the authority to remove the
person holding the highest position in the party from the primary membership.
According to the basic structure of the party, the primary members have the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
power to elect the General Secretary, and if the General Secretary does not
perform well, the primary members can vote him out in the next election and
the General Council cannot usurp this power. Thus, the learned senior counsel
submitted that the General Council has no powers either under the bye-law to
take disciplinary action against the member of the party or to expel him from
the party, however, the learned Judge failed to consider the same, while
refusing to grant the order of injunction.
12. Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned senior counsel for the appellant in OSA
Nos.73, 77 and 78 of 2023 would submit that the appellant viz., Mr.J.C.D.
Prabhakar has been a dedicated member of the party for over 44 years and he
was nominated as a member of the Ambattur Township by the esteemed
Puratchi Thalaivar MGR in 1978. By his involvement, the appellant achieved a
significant milestone in 1980 when he was elected as a Member of the
Legislative Assembly, representing the Villivakkam Constituency. In 2011, the
appellant was once again elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly,
representing the Villivakkam Constituency and was appointed as the
Minorities Deputy Secretary within the first respondent's party. It is further
submitted that during his tenure as the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Small
Industries Development Corporation Ltd (SIDCO) from 2013 to 2016, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
appellant played a pivotal role in promoting small industries, thereby
contributing to economic growth and job creation.
12.1. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that the approach
taken by the learned Judge is fundamentally flawed on the following reasons:
Firstly, the impugned order fails to take into account the historical context of
the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party, the intent
of the party's founder, Dr. M.G. Ramachandran, and the fundamental structure
of the party. The seminal features of the party's structure are that (i) it is akin
to the Presidential system, which was intentionally designed by the party's
founder to ensure the direct election of the General Secretary by primary
members. This design choice stemmed from Dr. Ramachandran's own past
experience of being expelled from his previous political party by members of
that party's General Council. The extraordinary powers vested in the General
Secretary (now substituted by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator acting
jointly) under Rule 45 of the party's bye-laws. (ii) Right from the Party's
formation, the bye-laws have always envisaged that any primary member of
the Party can contest for elections to the post of General Secretary (later
Coordinator and Joint Coordinator) as long as they have been members of the
Party for 5 years without any break. There have never been significant or high
threshold restrictions on whom can contest for elections to the top-most post
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
of the Party.
12.2. Secondly, it is asserted that the learned Judge failed to adequately
address the principal contention put forth by the appellant, namely, that
Resolutions 3 to 6 passed at the General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022
violated the basic structure of the party's bye-laws. According to the learned
senior counsel, this was the crucial question to be determined in order to
ascertain whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for grant of
injunction. Instead of rendering prima facie findings on this issue, the learned
Judge incorrectly relegated the issue relating to the alleged violation of basic
structure for decision in the trial of the suit. Thus, the Impugned Order
proceeds on the mistaken premise that the primary attack of the appellant in
the current phase of interlocutory applications was that the resolutions were
invalid because the convening of the General Council meeting was invalid.
12.3. Thirdly, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the
learned Judge erred in not appreciating that the approach for determining the
balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable injury should be distinct in
the current round of interlocutory applications. In this case, the challenge has
been made against each of Resolution Nos. 3-6 and the Special Resolution
passed at the General Council meeting based on their merits. Specific prayers
and averments have been made concerning the legality and consequences of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
these resolutions on the vested rights of the appellant. However, the learned
Judge has committed the error of telescoping the analysis made in respect of
these issues of balance of convenience and irreparable injury in the prior round
of interlocutory applications, which assailed the validity of the convening of
the General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022.
12.4. Lastly, it is argued by the learned senior counsel that the learned
Judge overlooked the fact that the entire suite of resolutions and bye-law
amendments under the present challenge were designed to enable and facilitate
the predatory takeover of the party by the respondent Thiru. Eddapadi K.
Palaniswami. These resolutions and amendments were deemed detrimental to
the party's interests, and this critical aspect was not duly considered by the
learned Judge. Therefore, the learned senior counsel prayed for allowing this
appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Judge.
Submissions made on the side of the respondents
13. Assailing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants,
Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the General Council
of AIADMK i.e., the 2nd respondent, advanced his submissions broadly on the
following heads viz., Key dates and events, general resolutions that amended
the bye-laws and the special resolution that expelled the appellants herein from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
the Party, Party's bye-laws, response to the arguments placed on the side of the
appellants and relevant case laws.
(i) Key dates and events:
(a) The learned Senior counsel emphasized that the party was founded in
the year 1972 by the esteemed leader M.G. Ramachandran, with the principle
that the General Secretary, the topmost position in the party, would be elected
by the primary members. This principle codified in bye-law 45, has been the
foundation of the Party's functioning ever since its inception, except for a brief
period between 12.09.2017 and 11.07.2022. During this period, the posts of
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were created in the place of General
Secretary and elections to these posts were held by the General Council,
thereby replacing the long-established practice of primary members electing
the Party's top position. He further submitted that the Political parties are not
categorized as companies, trusts, or societies, and therefore, they are not
required to be registered under any specific statutory law. The registration of
party bye-laws with the Election Commission of India serves a limited
purpose, particularly during elections. This registration allows verification as
to whether the person endorsing individuals on behalf of the party has
authority, to prevent unauthorized claims and potential chaos. Section 29A of
the Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1951, pertains to this requirement, and it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
mandates the Party to inform the Election Commission of India about its bye-
laws. The Election Commission of India performs a ministerial act of affixing
the seal when presented with the registered bye-laws.
(b) On 05.12.2016, Dr. J. Jayalalithaa, the General Secretary of the Party
died and after her demise, on 12.09.2017, the post of General Secretary was
abolished, and Dr. J. Jayalalithaa was made the eternal General Secretary of
the Party. The posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were created, with
the power to elect individuals to these posts given to the General Council. On
24.09.2017, Mr. R.Vaithiyalingam / appellant in OSA Nos. 71, 72 and 75 of
2023 and Mr. O. Panneerselvam / appellant in OSA.Nos.68 to 70/2023
submitted affidavits to the Election Commission of India expressing support
for the resolutions passed on 12.09.2017. On 01.12.2021, the Executive
Council met and resolved to place the bye-law amendments regarding the
election to the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator before the General
Council for approval. However, this approval has not been obtained till date.
On 02.12.2021, elections for the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
were held, and on 06.12.2021, the appellant in OSA Nos.68 to 70 of 2023 and
the third respondent viz., Edapadi K. Palaniswami were declared to have been
unanimously elected to the posts respectively. On 02.06.2022, a joint
announcement was made by the Co-ordinator and joint Co-ordinator, calling
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
for a meeting of the General Council on 23.06.2022. On 12.06.2022, the Party
Headquarters announced a meeting of all District Secretaries and office
bearers on 14.06.2022. During this meeting, the majority expressed the view
that the system of dual leadership was damaging the Party and called for the
restoration of the single leadership system.
(c) On 19.06.2022, the appellant Mr.O.Panneerselvam wrote a letter to
the third respondent, requesting to postpone the General Council meeting
scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022, fearing that the single leadership would
be restored. The third respondent Edapadi K. Palaniswami replied to the
appellant on 21.06.2022, refusing to postpone the meeting. While so, a Writ
petition in W.P.No.15621 of 2022 was filed by one P.Benjamin praying for
grant of police protection for the Party’s General Council meeting scheduled
to be held apprehending law & order issues stemming from the appellant and
his supporters. It is pertinent to note that the appellant opposed the grant of
police protection by filing an intervening petition. However, despite
appellant’s opposition, the court held on 21.06.2022 that it was necessary and
appropriate to provide police protection for the General Council Meeting
scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022. On the very same day viz., 21.06.2022,
the appellant took further action by writing a letter to the Commissioner of
Police, Avadi, requesting to cancel the General Council meeting scheduled for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
23.06.2022. This correspondence indicates that the appellant wanted to stall
the said meeting by one way or the other. In the meanwhile, the appellant’s
supporter initiated legal proceedings by filing C.S.No. 111 of 2022, seeking an
order of injunction restraining the General Council Meeting scheduled for
23.06.2022 and the said application was dismissed on 22.06.2022. The
dismissal of the application signifies the Court's determination that there was
no legal basis to impede or prevent the General Council Meeting from taking
place. Undeterred by the dismissal, an appeal was promptly filed before the
Division Bench on the same day evening on 22.06.2022, and the Division
Bench, after hearing the matter, pronounced a judgment on the early morning
of 23.06.2022, at approximately 4:30 am, holding that the General Council
may hold discussions on various matters but shall refrain from making any
decisions, except for the 23 draft resolutions that had been circulated to the
appellant.
(d) On the date scheduled for the General Council Meeting i.e., on
23.06.2022, a notable turn of events occurred. During the meeting, all 23
resolutions, previously circulated among the Council members, were subjected
to a voice vote and rejected. The collective demand of the members of the
Council was to prioritize the resolution of leadership issue above everything
else. Demonstrating their unity and intent, a substantial majority of the General
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Council members, precisely, 2190 out of 2655, signed a requisition to hold the
next General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022. The argument of the appellant
was that the aforementioned resolution to hold the subsequent meeting must
have been placed before the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, who would
then jointly convene the meeting. However, it is crucial to clarify that such a
procedure was unnecessary in this instance. The resolution, as submitted, was
presented to the Presidium Chairman, Mr. Tamilmagan Hussain, who had been
duly appointed jointly by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. Therefore,
the resolution adhered to the proper channels of authority and did not require
any additional steps. The Agenda for the meeting was circulated involving
amendment of bye-laws, but there was no resolution for removal of any
member in the Agenda, which would show that the resolution to remove the
member in question was not pre-planned, but arose as a result of subsequent
events and circumstances.
(e) In furtherance of internal party affairs, the party headquarters issued
a notice convening an interim meeting of office bearers. During the course of
these events, SLP (C) No.11237 of 2022 was filed by the third respondent.
The Supreme Court, upon consideration of the appeal, issued an order staying
the operation of the Division Bench order. It is important to note that this order
came after the conclusion of the General Council Meeting, thus impacting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
subsequent proceedings. Subsequently, on 23.02.2023, all the Special Leave
Petitions connected to this case were disposed of, making the interim order of
this court dated 06.07.2022 absolute. Feeling aggrieved, on the same day, the
appellant and his supporter Vairamuthu filed a suit along with interim
applications in O.A.Nos.368, 370 and 379 of 2022 with the aim of halting the
meeting scheduled for 11.07.2022. This suit was heard on 08.07.2022, and the
court pronounced its orders on the morning of 11.07.2022, dismissing all the
applications primarily on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
intervene in the internal affairs of the party. While the party members had
already assembled at Vaanagaram, the designated venue for the General
Council Meeting, the appellant and his supporters went to the Party
Headquarters office at Royapettah in a van and they broke open the door.
Their actions resulted in the ransacking of the headquarters, creating a chaotic
and unsettling situation reminiscent of a state of war. The severity of their
actions becomes even more apparent considering the items taken during the
intrusion, which included the original title deeds of party-owned properties,
original registration books of 35 vehicles, and hard disks containing crucial
information. However, due to the diligent efforts of the police, these articles
were recovered. The third respondent promptly filed an application seeking
recovery of the articles seized during the ransacking. Initially, the Magistrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
refused to entertain the application, but subsequent legal proceedings,
including a Criminal Revision filed, resulted in a favorable order for the third
respondent, allowing him to take possession of the recovered articles.
(f) It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the General Council
Meeting attendees were not oblivious to the events unfolding at the Party
Headquarters office. The members present had access to images and videos
depicting the appellant and his supporters engaging in the aforementioned
ransacking and destruction. Naturally, this information evoked a strong
response from the members, leading to their agitation. In response to this
agitation and citing the appellant's actions as detrimental to the Party's
interests, the floor was opened for discussion, and an overwhelming majority
expressed dissatisfaction with the appellant's continuance with the Party on
11.07.2022. As a result, the resolution for their removal from the primary
membership was passed through a voice vote. As the person being removed,
held the position of Co-ordinator of the Party, it is important to emphasize that
only an authority higher than him, such as the General Council, possesses the
jurisdiction to effectuate his removal. Therefore, the removal of the appellant
was carried out in accordance with the Party's internal procedures, and no
illegality can be ascribed to this action. On 11.07.2022, the Election
Commission of India was intimated about the changes made in the bye-laws.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
(g) Thereafter, the revenue officers sealed the party office, treating it as
a property under dispute. Crl.O.P.No.16343 of 2022 was filed by the third
respondent challenging the 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings and the same was allowed
on 20.07.2022 holding the appellant to be a trespasser and the same was
upheld by the Supreme Court. Pursuant to the order of this court dated
11.07.2022, the appellant directly moved the Supreme Court by-passing the
Division Bench and on 29.07.2022, the Supreme Court set aside the order of
the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter to the learned Judge for
fresh consideration and that, status quo has to be maintained till the disposal.
Pursuant to the remand, the matter was heard and on 17.08.2022, the
applications were allowed, setting aside the meeting held on 11.07.2022. The
Court ordered a status quo ante as of 23.06.2022 though it was not prayed for
by the appellant. Challenging the same, the third respondent filed
O.S.A.Nos.227, 231 and 232 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Court set
aside the order of the learned Judge and held that the meeting held on
11.07.2022 was valid. It is relevant to point out that the subject matter of the
case was limited to the convening of the meeting only and did not address
about the validity of the resolutions passed during the meeting. The Supreme
Court also affirmed the Division Bench's order in the month of February 2023
without delving into the resolutions, stating that any proceedings challenging
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
the resolutions passed in the meeting should be decided in accordance with
law. It is also pertinent to mention that during the course of SLP proceedings
filed by the appellant, the third respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking
that no election to the post of General Secretary will be held till the disposal of
the SLP and acted according to the said undertaking.
(h) On 25.01.2023, an application seeking impleadment of Election
Commission of India was filed for the Election Commission of India to take on
record the amended bye-laws of the Party as Erode by-election was around the
corner. The most important reason, why the Election Commission of India had
to update the bye-laws was, because Forms A and B were to be signed by the
person authorised in the bye-laws for the purpose of fielding the candidate
nominated by the Party. This impleading Application was necessary as the
appellant was proclaiming that only he was authorised to nominate the
candidate on behalf of the Party. Pending disposal of the SLP, the Supreme
Court observed that since the validity of the General Council meeting held on
11.07.2022 has not yet been decided finally, the General Council can nominate
candidate and it will be signed by the Presidium Chairman, because the doubt
as to whether the General Secretary post is recognised and whether the posts
of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator is abolished validly, is still to be tested,
however the supremacy of the General Council is not doubted so this was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
recommended to be followed as an interim measure. The third respondent
named a candidate and by a vast majority, the General Council approved it and
the appellant did not nominate anyone. The SLP preferred against the earlier
Division Bench, which was passed on the early morning of 23rd June 2022 in
which stay was granted, was disposed of with the stay being made absolute.
(i) The illegal nomination form in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly
Election was filed by one Mr.K.Kumar with the signature of the appellant
authorising him in the capacity of Co-ordinator of the Party. In this
connection, a FIR was registered against the candidate and a complaint was
also given to the Election Commission of India. Thereafter only, he withdrew
his nomination. Meanwhile, the appellant has been appointing and removing
District Secretaries of the Party without any authority. Thus, according to the
learned senior counsel, on one hand, the appellant is challenging the resolution
of his removal, but on the other hand, he is proclaiming himself to be the
Co-ordinator everywhere and damaging the name of the Party.
(j) The learned senior counsel further submitted that on 03.03.2023, a
fresh suit was filed and an interim application was filed to restrain the election
for the post of General Secretary. The third respondent voluntarily undertook
that elections would be conducted, but the results would not be declared until
the disposal of the interim application and after disposal of the application, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
May 2023, the third respondent was declared elected as the General Secretary.
Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court was approached to direct the Election
Commission of India to update the party's bye-laws. The Court directed the
Election Commission of India to take appropriate action which resulted in the
bye-laws being updated as per the amendments made by the General Council.
The original applications filed by the appellants herein, seeking interim
injunction against the resolutions passed on 11.07.2022 were dismissed,
aggrieved by which, the present appeals are filed.
(ii) General Resolutions that amended the bye-laws of the Party and the
Special Resolution that expelled the appellants from the primary membership
of the Party:
(a) The learned senior counsel submitted that by Resolution no.3, the
Posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were abolished and the post of
General Secretary was restored and was to be elected by the primary members
of the Party. Denying the stand of the appellants that the said resolution
violated the basic structure of the Party, it is submitted that this amendment
has only restored the basic structure of the Party. It is because 51 years have
passed since the creation of the Party and for 47 years, this has been the Basic
structure i.e., General Secretary being elected by the primary members of the
Party and only due to aberration for a small period of 4 years, this was altered,
but that does not become the basic structure of the Party. Till 2017, there was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
no qualification for a person to become the General Secretary, however on
29.12.2017, it was made that the persons to get elected to the posts of
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator must have been primary members of the
party for at least 5 years and this is got amended in July 2022 replacing that a
person to be elected to the post of General Secretary must have been an office
bearer of the Headquarters office for a continuous period of 5 years and he
must be proposed by 10 District Secretaries and seconded by 10 District
Secretaries. What should be the eligibility condition for a Post, can always be
fixed by the Party and the Court cannot question the wisdom of the Party in
fixing the criteria as it would then amount to intrusion into the internal affairs
of the Party. The amendments were implemented with the intention to ensure
that the party would be led by an experienced individual with unwavering
support from the grass root level.
(b) The learned senior counsel further submitted that by Resolution
no.4, the Post of Interim General Secretary was created; as per Resolution
No.5, the third respondent was named as interim General Secretary, by a voice
vote; and Resolution No.6, pertains to the notification to the election of the
post of General Secretary. The election to the post of General Secretary was
resolved to be conducted within 4 months. On 28.05.2023, the third
respondent was declared as elected to the post of General Secretary. This again
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
was questioned by the appellant stating that the election ought not to have
been held, when the subject matter is pending before this Court, but there was
nothing wrong in conducting the election, because there was no prohibitory
order restraining the election.
(c) The learned senior counsel would also submit that the third
respondent was the sole candidate, who contested in the election, and the
resolutions in question were passed by 2524 out of 2655 members of the
General Council. That apart, refuting the plea of the appellant that the
resolution to remove him was passed before the amendments to the bye-laws
were made, the learned senior counsel clarified that the amendments were
made first.
(d) According to the learned senior counsel, in respect of disciplinary
action against the member, Bye law 35 (7) assumes significance. It says, action
could be taken by the Executive Council of the Party unit or by a Party Unit
higher than it or by the General Secretary. In this case, the person to be
removed is a member of General Council, so, the General Council can take
disciplinary action. To make the Bye-law 35 workable and to remove the
highest authority of the Party (at that time when he was the Co-ordinator), only
a superior authority can remove him and it is only in that sense the General
Council removed him. Injunction is an equitable relief and for a person to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
claim it, he must have equity on his side. The learned Judge in the order
impugned herein, has stated that prime facie case has been made out on the
part of the appellant with regard to his removal. Even if there is a prime facie
case, balance of convenience is to be looked at and if that is not satisfied,
injunction can be refused. Hence, there is no application of Articles 14 and 16
for a Political Party, only the bye-laws govern the field. If balance of
convenience is looked at, reinstatement of the appellant will only lead to
further confusion and the political activities will lead to turmoil. Further,
removal whether legal or not is to be gone into only at the stage of final
hearing and not at the interim stage because never would a Court direct interim
reinstatement. It would always ask the party to establish his right at the stage
of final hearing and as such, the same logic is to be applied to the present case.
The learned senior counsel also submitted that there are plenty of documents
available to show that the appellant is acting detrimental to the Party’s interest,
such as, breaking of the Party headquarters and trespassing illegally and
stealing all the documents, illegally nominating a candidate misusing the
letterhead of the Party and appointing and removing District Secretaries and
even dissolving the General Council. Moreover, the appellant has been
removed in the month of July and only now, he is filing a Suit which means
that no irreparable injury has been caused to him ever since his removal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
(iii) Party's Bye-laws:
Referring to an overview of various bye-laws, namely Bye-law 6
addressing the Village Panchayat Party Unit, Bye-law 8 governing the
Municipal Town Party Unit, Bye-law 9 pertaining to the Township Party Unit,
Bye-law 10 governing the Panchayat Union Party Unit, and Bye-law 11
focusing on the District Level Party Unit, it is submitted by the learned Senior
counsel that at each of these levels, starting from the grass root level,
democratic principles are diligently upheld. Significantly, all Secretaries
elected in accordance with Bye-law 11 from the 75 Districts constitute an
integral part of the general Council. He further submitted that Bye law 19
deals with General Council and it says, it is a supreme body with all powers of
the kazhagam; Bye-law 19(8) says that General Council is vested with the
power to make policies and implement them and it is binding on all the
members of the party; and Bye-law 20A General Secretary post is now
revived. Adding further, the learned senior counsel submitted that Bye-law
20A(c) is the new condition that says for a person to stand in election for the
post of General Secretary, he must be proposed by 10 District Secretaries and
seconded by 10 District Secretaries and each District Secretary can nominate
only one person and General Secretary is elected by the primary members of
the Party.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
(iv) Response to the appellants' contentions:
(a) As regards the submissions of Mr. Mani Shankar, learned Senior
counsel for the appellant in OSA Nos. 71, 72 and 75 of 2023 that Co-ordinator
is the highest post in the Party and he cannot be removed, the learned senior
counsel submitted that this argument can be negatived by looking at bye-law
35, which says that every member of the Party is subject to the control of the
General Council; Bye-law 35(12) also creates and exception from the normal
procedure to be followed in case of emergency disciplinary action to be taken
by the General Secretary. In this context, the learned Senior counsel referred to
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Inland Water
Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [AIR 1986 SC 1571], wherein
it was observed that a clause that gave power to the corporation to terminate
permanent employee by giving him three months basic pay and D.A. was like
“Henry the VIIIth” clause and it was struck down as violative of Articles 14
and 16. Political Parties’ bye-law cannot be subjected to Constitutional
mandate as it is a private organisation and it is free to have its own hire and
fire policy. The Member cannot force the Association to have him as its
member. This is also fortified by the judgement in Supreme Court Bar
Association v. B.D. Kaushik [(2011) 13 SCC 774], in which, it has been
clearly stated that individual rights will get subsumed into the collective rights
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
of the party whenever a person joins as a member of it. Although the bye-laws
empower only the General Secretary of the Party to take immediate
disciplinary action, since, the person supposed to be removed is the
Co-ordinator, which is the supreme position in the Party, in the fitness of
things, it was thought fit that the General Council being supreme organ of the
Party, would be competent to remove him from primary membership.
(b) The learned senior counsel also referred to Bye-law 45, which says
that General Secretary is to be elected by the primary members of the Party
and is the basic structure of the party; and Bye law 35 says that general power
to frame amend the bye-laws is with the General Council. That apart, he relied
on the documents which are filed after the learned Judge's order, currently
under appeal, including the Declaration of 3rd respondent as General
Secretary, the Order of the Delhi High Court directing the Election
Commission of India to take action on the representation, the Election
Commission of India taking on record the amended bye-laws, the Election
Commission of India's letter to the Chief Electoral Officer responsible for the
conduct of the Karnataka Assembly Election, the direction of Election
Commission of India to grant the Two leaves symbol to the candidate fielded
by the Party, the letter by the 3rd respondent stating objection to the
nomination form, the FIR registered against K. Kumar, and the appellant using
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
the Party letterhead and dissolving the alleged fake General Council of the
Party.
(c) Replying to the arguments advanced by Mr. P.S. Raman, learned
Senior counsel for the appellant in OSA Nos.68, 69 and 70 of 2023, the
learned Senior counsel submitted that the General Council howsoever supreme
cannot act as a lynch mob. According to the learned senior counsel, the
primary members of the Party and the will of the members is to remove the
appellant for his conduct, the supreme organ vested with the power to take any
decision binding on every member of the Party can validly remove the
appellant. He further submitted that the decision in Supreme Court Bar
Association v B.D. Kaushik [(2011) 13 SCC 774] clearly answers the point
that the appellant’s right is subject to the collective will of the Party and is
subject to the rules and regulations of the Party. Continuing further, the
learned senior counsel submitted that Bye-law 35(12) which is to be read
independently, empowers even the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator to be
removed without hearing, if the General Council feels it as urgent. When the
appellant held the position of Co-ordinator in the party, he, along with the
third respondent, removed O. Raja (who is the appellant's own brother)
without any hearing or prior notice, claiming it was in the interest of the Party.
However, the next day, upon his request for pardon, he was reinstated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
(d) Resisting the argument that the amendment was so done exclusively
for the purpose of preventing the appellant from contesting in the election, the
learned senior counsel submitted that this is a fallacious, because there are 75
District Secretaries and even if the 3rd respondent commands the support and
is able to get 20 District Secretaries in his favour for nominating and
seconding still there will be 55 District Secretaries left so it is for the
Appellant to garner support. Placing reliance on the decision in Supreme
Court Bar Association's case (cited supra), the learned senior counsel
submitted that internal matters of the body cannot be interfered with by the
Court and it has to regulate itself and therefore, whatever be the condition or
eligibility criteria, the Party feels to be right can be fixed by it rightfully unless
it offends any statutory law.
(e) With regard to the submission that injunction ought not to have been
refused after prima facie finding in the favour of appellant, the learned senior
counsel placed reliance on various Judgments of the Apex Court and
submitted that such an argument would not hold water as requirement of all
the three factors viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable
loss, is necessary for order of injunction to be granted and satisfaction of just
one ingredient is insufficient.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
(f) Drawing the attention of this Court to the submission that removal
resolution was not in the agenda for 11.07.2022 meeting, the learned senior
counsel would submit that the Party ever since its creation usually does not
have the practice of circulating pre-written published agenda for its
forthcoming meetings and it was only after the Division Bench judgement in
O.S.A. No.160 of 2022, which ordered the General Council not go beyond the
agenda, the party strictly started to list down the resolutions and subjects that
are to be discussed in the meeting as Agenda, but when the Division Bench
Judgment was ultimately stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, even that finding
of the Division Bench directing the Council not to go beyond the Agenda loses
force. Hence, according to the learned senior counsel, that cannot be an
argument to whittle down the resolution otherwise passed with overwhelming
majority.
(v) Relevant case laws:
In order to support his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on
the following decisions:
(a) Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v Dunlop India
[(1985) 1 SCC 260]
(b) Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 719]
(c) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(1999) 7 SCC
1]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
(d) Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo [(2012) 6
SCC 792]
(e) Mohd. Mehtab Khan v Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan [(2013) 9 SCC
221)
(f) Gujarat bottling Co. Ltd. v Coca Cola Co. [(1995) 5 SCC 545]
(g) Seema Arshad Zahirand vs Mumbai Corporation [(2006) 5 SCC 282]
(h) Judgment of the House of Lords in Tinsley v Milligan
With these submissions and case laws, the learned Senior counsel prayed for
dismissal of all the appeals filed by the appellants herein.
14. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
third respondent in OSA.Nos.68, 69 and 70 of 2023 viz., Mr. Edapadi
K.Palaniswamy submitted that the very election of the appellant to the post of
Co-ordinator is invalid because it was done pursuant to the amendments made
to the Bye-laws by the Executive Committee on 01.12.2021. He would further
submit that only the General Council has the power to modify, amend or alter
the bye-laws and the Executive Committee lacks authority to amend the bye-
laws, it is for this reason that the resolution amending the Bye-laws was agreed
to be placed before the General Council for ratification but it was never placed
before it. Therefore, when the General Council has not given the seal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
approval, the amendments to the Bye-law would not stand and thus, the
appellant cannot claim any vested right to hold the said post. In this context,
the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the observation of the learned
Judge in Para 57 of the Impugned Order, which is quoted below for ready
reference:
“57. The Division Bench had observed that the post of General
Secretary had been substituted by the Coordinator and the Joint
Coordinator. The change in nomenclature of the post may not amount too
much, but the change of electors definitely disturbed the Constitution of the
party. Taking into account the observations made by the Division Bench, the
Executive Committee of the party had passed resolutions on 01.12.2021. The
said resolutions in effect sought to amend the bye-laws of the party. Based
upon such resolutions, elections were conducted to the post of the
Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator, in which Mr.O.Paneerselvam and
Edapadi K. Palaniswamy were elected as Coordinator and the Joint
Coordinator respectively. The said resolutions were required to be placed
before the next General Council. I am afraid that the resolution dated
01.12.2021 passed by the Executive Committee is without any authority, as
the power to amend the bye-law is only vested with the General Council
under Rule 43 of the bye-laws.”
14.1. The learned senior counsel further referred to Para 33 of the
Division Bench Judgment in O.S.A No. 227 of 2022 etc., which was affirmed
by the Apex Court by order dated 23.02.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1392 of
2023 to substantiate the fact that the Executive Council lacks power to amend
bye-laws. The said paragraph is profitably extracted below:-
"33. Admittedly, there is a functional deadlock in the Party due to the
stand taken by the appellant and the 1st respondent (in O.S.A. No. 227 of
2022). Rules 5, 19(i) and 19(viii) are absolutely clear that the General
Council is the Supreme body of the Party. As per the By-laws of the Party,
the Executive Council has not been given power either to amend the Rules
or to take any important decision. If such decision is taken, the same
should be approved by the General Council of the Party."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
14.2. According to the learned senior counsel, the abolition of the posts
of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator does not in any way destroy the basic
structure of the Party, and the same was done out of necessity to remedy the
functional deadlock that was existing in the Party; and for the purpose of
restoring effective leadership in the Party, the General Council exercised its
powers and amended the bye-laws for the effective and smooth functioning of
the Party. He also drew the attention of this court to few paragraphs of the
order of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2023 dated
23.02.2023 to submit that even the Apex Court has recognized the uneasy
situation prevailing in the Party and the Apex Court has even observed that the
same does not in any way offend the spirit of the bye-laws. Relevant portions
of the Judgment is as follows :
“ 26. ... The Division Bench also referred to an undeniable fact
situation that the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were at loggerheads
and any strict application of Rule 19(vii) was likely to result in a deadlock”
“ 28.1. ....When Coordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were shown to
be not functioning jointly (for whatsoever reason), a functional deadlock
came into existence for the party and a workable solution was required to be
found.“
“ 32. ...Obviously, a workable solution was to be found; and when
the solution as found and applied, does not otherwise appear offending the
spirit of byelaws as also the norms of functioning of an association or a
party”
14.3. The learned senior counsel would further submit that though the
respondents have not preferred any appeal against the learned Judge's order,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
they are aggrieved with the finding that prima facie case has been made out in
favour of the appellants in relation to their expulsion from membership of the
Party. It is also submitted that according to Clause (vii) of Rule 35,
disciplinary action can be taken by the Executive Committee, a higher unit of
the Party, or by the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator. Referring to
paragraphs 65 and 66 of the impugned order, he would contend that clauses 35
(iii) to (xi) outlines the procedure for disciplinary action under normal
circumstances but clause 35 (xii) should be interpreted independently. He
emphasized that clause 35 (xii) stands on its own and is invoked by the
Coordinator and Joint Coordinator only when immediate disciplinary action is
deemed necessary. Therefore, in cases of immediate action, the process of
issuing a charge sheet and seeking an explanation within seven days, as
mentioned in clause 35 (vi), does not arise. Thus, according to the learned
senior counsel, the learned Judge erred in concluding that a prima facie case
was established by the appellants. However, with regard to other two factors,
the learned Judge has rightly held that the same were absent and rightly
refused to grant injunction. He further contends that the appellant's pleadings
in OSA No. 68 of 2023 etc. only state that charges were not framed, principles
of natural justice were not followed, and the power to take disciplinary action
rests solely with the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator and not with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
General Council. However, it is evident from the Bye-laws that the General
Council is the supreme organ and beyond any doubt, a higher party unit than
the Executive Committee. Therefore, he strenuously contends that the General
Council cannot be deemed to be lacking in authority. It is further submitted
that a mere perusal of the plaint clearly reveals the absence of pleadings
demonstrating a balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable loss.
Furthermore, the contention that the appellant’s expulsion would not only
irreparably affect him, but also the electorate he represents, is baseless and
unacceptable and fails to hold the ground as the appellant is still functioning as
MLA, without causing any harm to the people. Thus, when the ingredients of
balance of convenience and irreparable loss are clearly absent, it is not proper
for the appellants to contend that the learned Judge should have automatically
granted the injunction as prayed for by them based on the finding of a prima
facie case finding alone.
14.4. To emphasize that the General Council is supreme of the party, the
learned senior counsel referred to Rule 5(7) of the bye-laws as it stood prior to
amendment, which states that the decision of the General Council is final and
binding on all members, highlighting the long-standing principle in the Party
that all members are subject to the General Council's decisions. He further read
bye-law 19(viii) which states as follows :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
“(viii) The General Council will be the supreme authority to frame policies
and programmes of the Party and for their implementation. The decision of
the General Council is final and binding on all the members of the Party.”
14.5. According to the learned senior counsel, the argument that the
basic structure is paramount and any resolution passed must align with the
desires of the primary members, lacks foundation. He submits that if for all the
matters, primary members are to be consulted, no decision can ever be taken
and the Party would come to a standstill because it is a National Party with
over 1.5 crore members. It is for this reason that the General Body is in
existence, to represent the will of the primary members. He further submitted
that this issue is finally decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it operates as
res judicata between the parties herein. To substantiate the same, he took the
Court through the following paragraphs from the Division Bench Judgment in
O.S.A No. 227 of 2022 etc. cases, which was affirmed by the Apex Court by
order dated 23.02.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2023.
“ 29. .... Moreover, the a`uthority of the General Council to deal
with the relevant matters could not have been brushed aside with reference
to the strength of the primary membership of the party”
“33. .... The supremacy of the General Council is because it is
elected ultimately by the Primary Members in terms of Rules 6 to 14 of the
Bye-Laws”
“34. As already stated, the General Council consists of 2665
members, who were elected through the Organizational Elections under
Rules 6 to 14 of the By-laws. The elected General Council Members
represent the Primary Members of the Party. It cannot be disputed that the
General Council is the Supreme Body in the party....”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
“42. The members of the General Council are representing the
Primary Members of the Party and when the majority of the members of the
General Council have given requisition for convening the Special General
Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 and also supported the Resolutions on
23.06.2022 and 11.07.2022, the balance of convenience cannot be held in
favour of the 1st respondent. ”
Thus, the appellant's contention that the General Council has acted in an
autocratic manner by amending the bye-laws against the wishes of the
members, is unfounded. The General Council, as the supreme body of the
party, has the authority to make decisions in the best interest of the Party as a
whole, and its actions cannot be deemed autocratic when they align with the
established rules and principles of the Party, according to the learned senior
counsel.
14.6. The learned senior counsel also referred to the following
paragraphs of the decision in T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria [1964 SCR (1) 1]
relied on by the appellant, and submitted that the same is irrelevant to the facts
of the present case:
“ ....8. The following principles may be gathered from the above
discussion.
(1) A member of a masonic lodge is bound to abide by the rules of the
lodge; and if the rules provide for expulsion, he shall be expelled only in
the manner provided by the rules.
(2) The lodge is bound to act strictly according to the rules, whether a
particular rule is mandatory or directory falls to be decided in each case,
having regard to the well settled rules of construction in that regard.
(3) The jurisdiction of a civil court is rather limited; it cannot
obviously sit as a court of appeal from decisions of such a body; it can set
aside the order of such a body, if the said body acts without jurisdiction or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
does not act in good faith or acts in violation of the principles of natural
justice as explained in the decisions cited supra. ...”
Firstly, this judgment was rendered not at the stage of interim injunction, but at
the final stage after taking evidence from either side and secondly, as
enumerated before, unlike this case, there was no provision like bye-law
35(xii) that empowers the authority to expel a member without notice. He
relied heavily on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Supreme Court Bar
Association's case (cited supra). Relevant paras are extracted hereunder:-
“43.It hardly needs to be emphasized that in any Body governed by
democratic principles, no member has a right to claim an injunction so as
to stall the formation of the Governing Body of the Association... “
“52. In matters of internal management of an association, the
courts normally do not interfere, leaving it open to the association and its
members to frame a particular bye-law, rule or regulation which may
provide for eligibility and or qualification for the membership and/or
providing for limitations/restrictions on the exercise of any right by and as a
member of the said association. It is well settled legal proposition that once
a person becomes a member of the association, such a person looses his
individuality qua the association and he has no individual rights except
those given to him by the rules and regulations and/or bye-laws of the
association. “
“ ...The authority to frame, amend, vary and rescind such rules,
undoubtedly, vests in the General Body of the Members of the Society. The
power to amend the rules is implicit in the power to frame rules.”
The Supreme Court further observed in Supreme Court Bar Association’
case, the Memorandum of Association is a contract amongst the members of
the Society, which though required to be registered under the statute, does not
acquire any statutory character. Further, in Para 51 of the Judgment, the Apex
Court quoted Para 16 from the Chheoki Employees’ case [1997 3 SCC 681]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
wherein it was observed that:
“.... No individual member is entitled to assail the constitutionality of the
provisions of the Act, rules and the bye-laws as he has his right under the
Act, rules and the bye-laws and is subject to its operation. The stream
cannot rise higher than the source."
Therefore, on the strength of the aforesaid Judgment, the learned senior
counsel contends that the appellants are not entitled to seek an order of
injunction to restrain the implementation of a resolution passed by a body
governed by democratic principles. Once the appellant becomes a member of
the Party, he does not possess an independent right, but his rights would be
governed in accordance with the Party's bye-laws. Furthermore, the courts
should refrain from interfering with the decisions made by such a body in
adherence to the bye-laws, as doing so would constitute an unwarranted
intrusion into the internal management of the Party. He further submits that the
Apex Court has unequivocally held that the power to amend bye-laws is
inherently vested in the authority that formulates the rules. Moreover, Rule 43
of the Bye-laws in the present case explicitly confers authority upon the
General Council to amend the Bye-laws. The Party exists as a manifestation of
the collective will of its members, and no individual can assert a right superior
to the will of the party. The General Council, through its unanimous decision
in favour of a single leadership, has effectively expressed the Party's will, and
ever since then the Party is functioning efficiently. Further, the appellant's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
attempt to obtain an order of injunction would essentially disrupt the Party’s
functioning and create an impasse. He would submit that the appellant is
solely driven by the personal interests rather than the interests of the Party as a
whole. It is emphasized that the supreme body of the Party, representing the
primary members, has unequivocally expressed its will by unanimously
abolishing the posts and restoring the fundamental structure of the Party, as
well as unanimously expelling the appellant and the decision of the General
Council cannot be overturned by this Court. Thus, according to the learned
senior counsel, the order of the learned Judge, which correctly refused to grant
the injunction, is perfectly valid and should not be interfered with.
Reply submissions made on the side of the appellants
15. In response to the various submissions made by the learned senior
counsels for the respondents/defendants, Mr.Guru Krishna Kumar, learned
senior counsel for the appellant in OSA Nos.68, 69 and 70 of 2023 submitted
that the argument put forth by the respondents is solely based on the premise
of the supposed supremacy of the General Council; that, the General Council
is the ultimate authority of the Party and possesses autocratic power to make
any decision that deems it appropriate; that, once the majority of the General
Council members have voted in favour of a decision, it becomes
unquestionable by any individual; and that, they rely on the General Council's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
plenary power to amend bye-laws. However, the said argument contains an
inherent fallacy as neither the party structure nor the bye-laws substantiate
their claim.
15.1. In this regard, the learned senior counsel has referred to Rule
19(viii) of the bye-law.
“ viii) The General Council will be the supreme authority to frame
policies and programmes of the Party and for their implementation. The
decision of the General Council is final and binding on all the members of
the Party.”
The respondents read out the above bye-law to emphasize that it explicitly
refers to the terms 'supreme authority' and 'binding on all members of the party'
and therefore, the General Council holds the topmost position in the party. On
the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the appellant compared it with
the same bye-law in Tamil version, which reads as follows:
@fHff; bfhs;iffis tFg;gJ ? mtw;iw
epiwntw;w jpl;l';fs; jPl;LtJ. fHfj;ij elj;jpr;
bry;yj; njitahd eltof;iffs; vLg;gJ.
,itfspy; ,Wjp KobtLf;f bghJf;FGnt
mjpfhuk; bgw;w mikg;ghFk;/@
The Tamil version of the bye-law does not contain the term 'final and binding
on all members.' Thus, it is suggested that the English version is a
freehand/loose translation of the original Tamil bye-laws. Therefore, while the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
General Council unquestionably holds an important position in the Party
structure, it is not more than one of the organs of the Party.
15.2. Adding further, the learned senior counsel submits that it is
absolutely absurd on the part of the respondents, who claim to follow the
ideals of the founder, to suggest that there is no basic structure in the Party.
The founder of the Party envisioned a basic structure that gives utmost
importance to the primary members. These members, having willingly
accepted the bye-laws, the Party's philosophy, and its ideas, are inherently
bound by the basic structure outlined in the bye-laws. A political party is a
crucial component of a democratic system, and it is unfathomable how a Party
can function without a basic structure. Political party is an important spoke in
the wheel of democracy. It is difficult to imagine how a Party can function
without basic structure. The argument of the respondents was that the
resolution passed on 11.07.2022 bringing in single leadership in the Party
restores basic structure. If it restores the basic structure, they cannot be
permitted to contend that there is no basic structure as both are diametrically
opposite stands and cannot go together. While the General Council exercises
power, parallely independent powers are vested with General Secretary/Co-
ordinator & Joint Co-ordinator (Bye law 45). The extent of power is to even
give exemption from operation of bye-law to any person. This is akin to a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
presidential form of government.
15.3. According to the learned senior counsel, the argument in relation
to the term 'lapse' put forth by the respondents is irrelevant, as the Supreme
Court left this question open for further determination. No decision should be
taken by the respondents to render the issue moot until it is finally decided. If
the issue of lapse is decided in favour of the appellant, he would function as
Co-ordinator from his election in 2021 until 2026. Even before the matter is
decided, the respondents have removed the appellant to dilute the issue of
lapse. Resolution No. 3, dated 11.07.2022 clearly establishes the grounds for
the abolition of the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, one of
which is lapse. Therefore, the General Council's actions were based on
misconceptions of fact and law. Furthermore, the respondents' claim that
single leadership was the will of the Party was not supported by the grounds
stated in the resolutions. That apart, there is no letter from the General Council
requisitioning this resolution, as stated by the respondents. Only one letter was
relied upon, and it even contains the handwritten additions of the words "otrai
thalaimai" (single leadership). The learned Judge treated it as an interpolation
and disregarded it at the interim stage, indicating that it should be considered
during the trial. Therefore, the respondents should have conducted a
consultation among the primary members to ascertain their views because, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
substance, the General Council's resolution reversed the will and mandate
expressed by the primary members on 06.12.2021. There is no material to
demonstrate that the General Council's resolution was also the opinion of the
primary members.
15.4. All the case laws relied upon by the respondents to argue that a
mere prima facie case would not entitle a person to an order of injunction, are
inapplicable to the present case. The facts of those cases are distinguishable
from the instant case, as the reliefs sought in those cases can be restored at the
final stage even if denied at the interim stage. If the appellant is not reinstated
now, his term would end by the time the suit is decided, causing significant
prejudice. Hence, the principles enshrined in such judgments regarding the
grant of injunctions should not be applied in this case. The learned Judge also
erred in assessing the balance of convenience, as it should be considered from
the view point of the parties to the litigation and not from the view point of the
political party. It is also submitted that the issues of res judicata, lapse, and the
validity of the resolutions passed on 11.07.2022 were all left open by the
Supreme Court to be decided in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, even
though the contentions may overlap, they do not foreclose their submissions
on the ground of res judicata.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
15.5. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel by way of
reply that if the argument that the General Secretary has all the powers to
remove any member from the Party is accepted, the third respondent could
have removed the appellant, because even according to the respondents, the
amendment to restore the position of General Secretary in the Party, was made
prior to the resolution for removal of the appellant.
16. As a riposte, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel submitted that
the appellant should have been given the opportunity to defend himself and
only after a fair hearing of the appellant's defense, any decision should have
been taken. Moreover, if the bye-laws specify a particular method of removal,
it is essential that the same be strictly followed. The learned senior counsel
further submitted that the appellant strongly denies any involvement in the
attack on the Party Head Quarters; he asserts that it was not carried out by him
or his supporters, but rather by the supporters of third respondent; and hence,
the said denial should be taken into account and thoroughly investigated
before reaching any conclusions or imposing penalties.
16.1. According to the learned senior counsel, the fact that other
members have been removed without proper inquiry in the past, does not
justify the appellant's removal. The illegality of previous removals cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
endorsed simply because those members did not challenge them in court. Each
case must be evaluated on its own merits, and in this case, the appellant’s
removal is without authority and without adherence to the principles of natural
justice.
16.2. The learned senior counsel has further pointed out that if the
respondents argument that party bye-laws are not sacrosanct to the functioning
of the party and are merely submitted to the Election Commission of India for
registration purposes, then, they should not heavily rely on them. However, the
Election Commission of India has the authority to scrutinize and even refuse
registration if the bye-laws are found to be atrocious. Therefore, the
respondents' reliance on the bye-laws indicates their own recognition of their
importance, which further emphasizes the need to adhere to them in the
appellant's case.
16.3. It is further submitted that the indoor management theory should
not be applied in this case because the appellant's vested rights have been
violated, and he should not be left without a remedy. The maxim "Ubi jus ibi
remedium" (where there is a right, there is a remedy) applies here, indicating
that the appellant should be provided with a fair and just remedy for the
alleged violations committed against him.
16.4. It is submitted that the decision in T.P.Daver v. Lodge Victoria
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
[1964 1 SCR 1] established that when bye-laws are strictly followed in the
removal of a person, a court cannot interfere unless there are allegations of
malafides or unfair treatment. The principles derived from this case emphasize
that a member of a club or organization is bound by the rules and should only
be expelled according to the procedures outlined in those rules. The
jurisdiction of a civil court is limited and can only set aside an order if the
body acts without jurisdiction, lacks good faith, or violates the principles of
natural justice. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-
“Though it is advisable for a club to frame rules to avoid conflict of
duties, if the rules sanction such a procedure, the party, who has bound
himself by those rules, cannot complain, unless the enquiry held pursuant to
such rules discloses malafides or unfair treatment. The following principles
may be gathered from the above discussion. (1) A member of a masonic
lodge is bound to abide by the rules of the lodge; and if the rules provide
for expulsion, he shall be expelled only in the manner provided by the
rules. (2) The lodge is bound to act strictly according to the rules, whether a
particular rule is mandatory or directory falls to be decided in each case,
having regard to the well settled rules of construction in that regard. (3) The
jurisdiction of a civil court is rather limited; it cannot obviously sit as a court
of appeal from decisions of such a body; it can set aside the order of such a
body, if the said body acts without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith
or acts in violation of the principles of natural justice as explained in the
decisions cited supra."
Thus, when the organization has failed to follow its own rules and has with a
mala fide intention removed senior members at haste without following
principles of natural justice, this Court cannot be restrained from intervening
and asked to remain a mute spectator.
16.5. The learned senior counsel also submitted that reliance placed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
the respondents on case laws for injunctive relief is misplaced because all of
them were cases concerning proprietory right that is amenable to restitution at
a later date even if interim injunction is refused. However, in the instant case,
denial of injunctive relief cannot be even adequately compensated in terms of
compensation. The cases that lay down general principles for grant of
injunction broadly would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as it
is strictly governed by the bye-laws.
17. Mr.Abdul Salem, learned senior counsel would submit that
regarding the lapse observed by the Supreme Court, it implies that the posts
will continue until 2026 or until a competent court decides otherwise. The
General Council has not considered the resolution related to the election of the
appellant and the respondent for the positions of Coordinator and Joint
Coordinator. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the General Council has
rejected the resolution when it has not even been presented to them. As long as
the General Council has not deliberated and rejected the resolution, the
appellant is considered to be continuing in the said post.
18. By way of reply, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned senior counsel, submitted
that bye-law 35 (12) should not be applicable in this case because it is an
emergency provision. Bye law 5(7) that prevents a member from going to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Court against any of the decision taken by the party is hit by Section 28 of the
Indian contract Act and the argument that there is no interim reinstatement of
membership is a principle to be confined only to service jurisprudence and
cannot be applied here. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury has
to be tested as on date of the cause of action. Earlier observations made by the
courts could not be applicable to the present case. In this context, the learned
Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision in Arjun Singh vs Mohindra
Kumar & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 993] to contend that interlocutory orders do
not operate as res judicata. The relevant portion of the observations made in
the aforesaid judgment is extracted below:-
“ 14. It is needless to point out that interlocutory orders are of various
kinds; some like orders of stay, injunction or receiver are designed to
preserve the status quo pending the litigation and to ensure that the
parties might not be prejudiced by the normal delay which the
proceedings before the court usually take. They do not, in that sense,
decide in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue in the suit
and do not, of course, put an end to it even in part. Such orders are
certainly capable of being altered or varied by subsequent applications
for the same relief, though normally only on proof of new facts or new
situations which subsequently emerge. As they do not impinge upon the
legal rights of parties to the litigation the principle of res judicata does
not apply to the findings on which these orders are based, though if
applications were made for relief on the same basis after the same has
once been dis- posed of the court would be justified in rejecting the
same as an abuse of the process, of court. There are other orders which
are also interlocutory, but would fall into a different category. The
difference from the ones just now referred to lies in the fact that they are
not directed to maintaining the status quo or to preserve the property
pending the final adjudication, but are designed to ensure the just,
smooth, orderly and expeditious disposal of the suit. They are
interlocutory in the sense that they do not decide any matter in issue
arising in the suit, nor put an end to the litigation. The case of an
application under O. IX. r. 7 would be an illustration of this type. If an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
application made under the provisions of that rule is dismissed and an
appeal were filed against the decree in the suit in which such application
were made, there can be no doubt that the propriety of the order rejecting
the reopening of the proceeding and the refusal to relegate the party to an
earlier stage might be canvassed in the appeal and dealt with by the
appellate court. In that sense, the refusal of the court to permit the
defendant to "set the clock back" does not attain finality. But what we are
concerned with is slightly different and that is whether the same Court is
finally bound by that order at later stages, so as to preclude its being
reconsidered. Even if the rule of resjudicata does not apply it would not
follow that on every subsequent day on which the suit stands adjourned
for further hearing the petition could be repeated and fresh orders sought
on the basis of identical facts. The principle that repeated applications
based on the same facts and seeking the same reliefs might be disallowed
by the court does not however necessarily rest on the principle of
resjudicata. Thus if an application for the adjournment of a suit is
rejected, a subsequent application for the same purpose even if based on
the same facts, is not barred on the application of any rule of res judicata,
but would be rejected for the same grounds on which the original
application was refused. The principle underlying the distinction between
the rule of res judicata and a rejection on the ground that no new facts
have been adduced to justify a different order is vital. If the principle of
res judicata is applicable to the decision on a particular issue of fact,
even if fresh facts were placed before the Court, the bar would continue
to operate and preclude a fresh investigation of the issue, whereas in the
other case, on proof of fresh facts, the court would be competent and
would be bound to take those into account and make an order
conformably to the facts freshly brought before the court”
Ultimately, it is submitted on the side of the appellants that the order of the
learned Judge dismissing the original applications, has to be set aside and
accordingly, the present appeals have to be allowed.
V. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
19. The short question that arises for consideration in the present
appeals is whether the appellants, who were the applicants/plaintiffs in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
respective applications/suits filed by them, are entitled to the reliefs as prayed
for. As already referred to, all the original applications have been filed seeking
interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents and persons
claiming under them, from implementing / enforcing the Special Resolution
dated 11.07.2022 as well as the Resolution Numbers 3,4, 5 and 6 passed on
11.07.2022, and also for an interim injunction restraining the respondents,
their men, agents and persons claiming under them, from conducting any
election to the post of General Secretary on 26.03.2023 or any other date,
pursuant to the notice dated 17.03.2023 pending disposal of the suit.
20. Since the present original side appeals have arisen from the
common order passed in the original applications, it is made clear at the very
outset that this Court does not intend to pass any orders that will touch upon
the rights of the parties, which are to be decided at the time of trial in the four
suits filed by the appellants herein.
21. We have given our anxious consideration to the detailed facts
outlined in the previous paragraphs as borne out by the pleadings and records
and materials placed before us as well as the detailed contentions and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
submissions made by the learned senior counsels on either side.
22. The undisputed facts which have a direct bearing on the present
appeals are that for the first time on 12.09.2017, the post of general secretary
of the AIADMK party came to be abolished, and the posts of Coordinator and
Joint Coordinator were created, and Mr. O.Paneerselvam (OPS) was appointed
as the Coordinator and Mr. Edapadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) was appointed as
the Joint Coordinator. Amendments also came to be made to the Byelaws
governing the party accordingly. The posts of Coordinator and Joint
Coordinator were to be elected by the General Council as per the Byelaws of
the Party. On 01.12.2021, in the meeting of the Executive Council in which the
rules pertaining to the election of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were
amended and it was specifically mentioned that the same would be placed
before the next convened General Council meeting, where the said
amendments were to be approved/ratified as the executive Council did not
have the powers to amend the bye-laws, which powers exclusively vest with
the General Council. After the election of OPS as Coordinator and EPS as
Joint co-ordinator, there was a joint announcement on 02.06.2022 convening
the meeting of the General Council on 23.06.2022. However, there was a
change in the events, when during the consultation meeting on 14.06.2022 the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
District secretaries discussed the need for a single leadership. The request of
the appellant in O.A. No. 251 of 2023 seeking for postponement of the
meeting which was scheduled on 23.06.2022 was not acceded to by the 3rd
respondent, and accordingly, a suit in CS No. 111 of 2022 was filed by one
Mr. Shanmugam, a supporter of the appellants, along with O.A. Nos. 327 and
328 of 2022 seeking interim injunction restraining the third defendant from
convening the meeting on 23.06.2022. It is pertinent to mention at this
juncture that the relief of interim injunction with respect to the meeting, was
refused by the learned Judge. It is also a matter of record that the Division
Bench had passed an interim order in CMP No. 9962 of 2022 in OSA No. 160
of 2022 granting an order of interim injunction against taking any decision on
any of the Resolutions apart from the alleged 23 draft Resolutions approved by
the Co-ordinator. However, on 23.06.2022 all the 23 Resolutions that were
placed before the General Council were rejected, and that, it was announced
that the next General Council meeting would be held on 11.07.2022. It is also
a matter of record that in the said meeting on 23.06.2022, the first appellant
herein was also present. In the meanwhile, by order dated 06.07.2022 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of the order dated 23.06.2022
passed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, on the very same day, the suits have
been filed by the first appellant O.Paneerselvam and one Vairamuthu,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
accompanied with interim applications seeking stay of the meeting dated
11.07.2022 after the order of the Supreme Court. The learned Judge dismissed
the applications in OA Nos. 368, 370 and 379 of 2022 seeking for interim
injunction against the meeting. As a result, the General Council meeting went
on, on 11.07.2022, in which, 2460 members attended the meeting and the dual
leadership that was approved earlier, viz. the posts of Coordinator and Joint
coordinator, came to be abolished and the single leadership under general
secretaryship was once again introduced and the post of interim general
secretary was created. The third respondent was elected as the interim general
secretary and election to the post of general secretary was to be conducted
within four months and officers were to be appointed as per the Resolutions
passed therein. Also importantly, the appellants were removed from their
respective posts and primary membership of the party and new office bearers
were appointed in their places. It is also seen that the amendments introduced
by the General Council were intimated to the Election Commission of India by
the 3rd respondent as the interim general secretary under section 29A of the
Representation of People’s Act 1951. When the order of the learned Judge
passed in the applications stated supra, came to be challenged before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and by order dated 29.07.2022, the Supreme Court
had remanded the matter back to the High Court to reconsider the issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
without being influenced by the orders of the Supreme Court either on
06/07/2022 or by the present order. Thereafter, on 17.08.2022 the said original
application Nos.368, 370 and 379 of 2022 were allowed and status quo ante as
on 23.06.2022 was ordered. Once again, OSA No.227 of 2022 etc cases, came
to be filed against the order of the learned Judge passed on 17.08.2022, and on
02.09.2022 the Division Bench allowed the Original Side Appeals by setting
aside the order dated 17.08.2022 and the original applications were
consequently dismissed and the convening of the General Council meeting
was upheld. On 30.09.2022, the first appellant and his group again approached
the Supreme Court by filing SLP (c) Nos. 15705-15706 of 2022, wherein an
undertaking was given on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the election to the
post of general secretary shall not be conducted pending disposal of the SLP.
The important turn of events happened at this stage is the subsequent
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.02.2023, by which, the
appeals filed against the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated
02.09.2022, came to be dismissed and the convening of the General Council
meeting held on 11.07.2022 was upheld as being valid. The SLPs filed against
the order of the Division Bench dated 23.06.2022 were also disposed of, by
making the interim order dated 06.07.2022 absolute. Thereafter, the four suits
seeking for declaration that the Resolutions passed on 11.07.2022 are illegal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
and invalid, came to be filed. In these suits, original applications have been
filed for the interim reliefs that have been dismissed by the learned Judge by
common order dated 28.03.2023, against which, the present Original Side
Appeals have been filed.
23. The above narration of the unfolded facts and events and the
connected litigation along with the orders passed by this Court as well as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court would clearly expose that the parties have approached
the Courts at every possible instance and the working and functioning of one
of the major political parties of Tamil Nadu has been mired in controversy as
well as in litigation for a long time. Now, an important fact that emerges from
the above narration is that while several events unfolded to the displeasure of
the appellants, and they approached the Courts time and again, and after two
rounds of litigation, they had not made out a case to prove that injury that is
incapable of being repaired or redressed by trial in the suits, has been caused
to them at any point of time.
24. To start with, this Court would like to proceed with the word of
caution as laid down in Wander Ltd. and another v. Antox India (P) Limited
[1990 Supp SCC 727], wherein it has been held that the Appellate Court could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court of first instance only
when the discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously
or perversely or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law
regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction.
25. That apart, the other guiding principles as laid down in the
following cases are of relevance and are extracted hereunder for useful
reference.
(i) Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v Dunlop
India [(1985) 1 SCC 260]:
“5. We repeat and deprecate the practice of granting interim order
which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better
reason than that a prima facie case has been made out, without being
concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of
other relevant considerations.”
(ii) Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 719]:
“5. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff by evidence alinude by affidavit
or otherwise that there is "a prima facie case" in his favour which needs
adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction
of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of
temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie
title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie
case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation
and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself
is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-
interference by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party
seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except
one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of
apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not
mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but
means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be
adequately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also is that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
"the balance of convenience" must be in favour of granting injunction. The
Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound
judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which
is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it
with that it is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted.
If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury
and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject-matter should be
maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the Court has
to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of
ad interim injunction pending the suit.”
(iii) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(1999)
7 SCC 1], in which, the principles of grant of interim injunction were laid
down:
“24. We, however, think it fit to note herein below certain specific
considerations in the matter of grant of interlocutory injunction, the basic
being-non-expression of opinion as to the merits of the matter by the Court,
since the issue of grant of injunction usually, is at the earliest possible stage
so far as the time frame is concerned. The other considerations which ought
to weigh with the Court hearing the application or petition for the grant of
injunctions are as below:-
(i) Extent of damages being an adequate remedy;
(ii) Protect the plaintiff's interest for violation of his rights though however
having regard to the injury that may be suffered by the defendants by reason
therefor;
(iii) The Court while dealing with the matter ought not to ignore the factum of
strength of one party's case being stronger than the others;
(iv) No fixed rules or notions ought to be had in the matter of grant of
injunction but on the facts and circumstances of each case - the relief being
kept flexible;
(v) The issue is to be looked from the point of view as to whether on refusal of
the injunction the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury keeping in
view the strength of the parties case;
(vi) Balance of convenience or inconvenience ought to be considered as an
important requirement even if there is a serious question or prima facie case
in support of the grant;
(vii) Whether the grant or refusal of injunction will adversely affect the
interest of general public which can or cannot be compensated otherwise."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
(iv) Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo [(2012)
6 SCC 792]:
“29. Yet, the settled principle of law is that even where prima facie case is
in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the
injury suffered by the plaintiff on account of refusal of temporary
injunction was not irreparable.
30. In Dalpat Kumar & Anr. v. Prahlad Singh & Ors. [(1992) 1 SCC 719]
this Court held:
“Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to
grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by
the Court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief
and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant
injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended
injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that
there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only
that the injury must be a material one, namely, one that cannot be
adequately compensated by way of damages.”
(v) Mohd. Mehtab Khan v Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan [(2013) 9
SCC 221]:
“20. In a situation where the learned Trial Court on a consideration of the
respective cases of the parties and the documents laid before it was of the
view that the entitlement of the plaintiffs to an order of interim mandatory
injunction was in serious doubt, the Appellate Court could not have
interfered with the exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Judge unless
such exercise was found to be palpably incorrect or untenable. The reasons
that weighed with the learned Trial Judge, as already noticed, according to
us, do not indicate that the view taken is not a possible view. The Appellate
Court, therefore, should not have substituted its views in the matter merely
on the ground that in its opinion the facts of the case call for a different
conclusion. Such an exercise is not the correct parameter for exercise of
jurisdiction while hearing an appeal against a discretionary order. While
we must not be understood to have said that the Appellate Court was wrong
in its conclusions what is sought to be emphasized is that as long as the view
of the Trial Court was a possible view the Appellate Court should not have
interfered with the same following the virtually settled principles of law in
this regard as laid down by this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P)
Ltd."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
(vi) Gujarat bottling Co. Ltd. v Coca Cola Co. [(1995) 5 SCC 545]:
“47. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant
case GBCX had approached the High Court for the injunction order, granted
earlier, to be vacated. Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or
temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being
approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of
the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere
unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in
nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he
himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing
about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or
inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief.
His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not
only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under order 39
Rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the
party approaching the Court for vacating the ad-interim or temporary
injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings.”
(vii) Seema Arshad Zahirand vs Mumbai Corporation [(2006) 5 SCC
282]:
“30. The discretion of the Court is exercised to grant a temporary
injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff:
(i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of
plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for
protection of plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for
protection of defendant's rights or likely infringement of defendant's rights, the
balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility
of irreparable injury being caused to plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not
granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the
discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's
conduct is free from blame and he approaches the Court with clean hands.”
26. On the strength of the above trite position of law, we proceed to
examine the correctness of the order under challenge. One of the important
questions that arises in these appeals would be on the enforceability or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
otherwise of the earlier Resolution of the Executive Council on 01.12.2021
creating the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator, which was kept for
approval of the General Council; and whether such approval by the General
Council can be said to be a mere ministerial act. This is important in view of
the repeated foundational argument that a reading of Rules 19(vii) and
20-A(viii) would show that the authority to convene the General Council
meeting is vested only with the Co-ordinator and the Joint co-ordinator, acting
jointly and therefore, the presidium chairman neither had the power to make
any announcement on 23.06.2022 about convening of the General Council
meeting on 11.07.2022 nor he could have convened any such meeting. It is
to be noted at this juncture that the very same contention has also been the
subject matter of the Supreme Court in its order dated 23.02.2023. Similarly
the issues of irreparable injury alleged to have been occasioned to the
appellant and accordingly, the contention of the balance of convenience being
in favour of the appellants or similarly situated persons who have been
expelled from the primary membership of the party as a consequence of the
Resolutions passed in the General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022, have
also been considered by the Supreme Court in the very same order dated
23.02.2023. The observations of the Supreme Court in Paragraphs 27-39 are of
utmost relevance and the same are usefully extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
"27. In our view, the logic and reasoning of the Division Bench of the High
Court stand in accord with law as also the facts of the present case.
28. The main plank of submissions on the part of the appellants in
challenge to the order dated 02.09.2022 has been that convening of the
meeting dated 11.07.2022 suffered from illegalities inasmuch as the meeting
was not convened by an authorised person and that 15 days notice was not
given. The same had been the reasoning adopted by the Learned Single Judge
while finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. The said reasoning
and similar arguments remain fallacious and cannot be accepted.
28.1. The facts of the case make it abundantly clear that so far as convening
of the meeting dated 23.06.2022 is concerned, the same had never been in
doubt or in any dispute. The said meeting was indeed convened by the Co-
ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator jointly, They had been working in tandem
until that stage. However, they seem to have fallen apart immediately
thereafter, particularly when a proposition for amendment of the byelaws and
reverting to the system of single leadership was in the offing. In any case, the
meeting dated 23.06.2022 was duly convened and the efforts to prevent the
same did not meet with success in the Court. Even if the slated business was
not transacted in the meeting dated 23.06.2022, all that had happened in that
meeting could not have been ignored. It remains undeniable that the plaintiff
OPS and the persons standing with him were also very much present in the
said meeting. The General Council is said to be consisting of 2665 members. If
2190 members out of these 2665 gave a requisition on 23.06.2022 for
convening the General Council meeting and the Presidium Chairman
announced the date of this requisitioned meeting as 11.07.2022, in the given
set of facts and circumstances, such announcement, at least at the present
stage, cannot be dubbed as wholly redundant. At that point of when Co.
ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were shown to be not functioning jointly (for
whatsoever reason), a functional deadlock came into existence for the party
and a workable solution was required to be found. In the given scenario, the
actions and steps taken by the requisitioning members as also by the Presidium
Chairman cannot be declared as unwarranted or illegal at this stage. That
being the position, convening of meeting dated 1 1.07.2022 could not have
been taken as an actunauthorised. The Learned Single Judge while passing the
order dated 17.08.2022 seems to have fallen in serious error and said order
was clearly suffering from perversity when convening of the meeting dated
11.07.2022 was taken as an act unauthorised. The Division Bench of the High
Court, in our view, has rightly looked at the substance of the matter and
realities of the situation.
28.2. The other alleged infirmity about want of clear 15 days' notice has also
been rightly dealt with by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
impugned order dated 02.09.2022. In our view, in such an internal matter of
the party, approach of the Court and that while considering the prayer for
interim relief, cannot be of finding technical faults and flaws detached from the
substance of the matter. Even as regards technicalities, the Division Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
appears to have rightly analysed the frame of the said Rule 19(vii), where the
requirement of 15 days' notice is referable to the regular meeting and not as
such to a requisitioned or special meeting.
29. The considerations of the Learned Single Judge as regards the question of
prima facie case had been suffering 'from basic flaws, as noticed above; and
interference by the Division Bench was but warranted looking to the subject-
matter of the litigation and its implications. This apart, and even if it be
assumed that the plaintiffs were able to project some arguable case before the
Court and some elements of prima facie case, in our view, the approach of the
Learned Single Judge while examining the questions of balance of convenience
and irreparable injury had been from an altogether wrong angle. As noticed,
the Learned Single Judge took the view that by not granting injunction, EPS
would be in a more convenient position for having allegedly removed the
plaintiff OPS and few others from the party membership and they could not
have even participated in the proposed General Secretary elections. According
to the learned Single Judge, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, in
the given context, were required to be visualised from the vantage point of the
primary members. Such observations and considerations of the Learned Single
Judge, in our view, do not stand in conformity with sound judicial principles.
The questions of balance of convenience and irreparable injury in relation to
the applications under consideration could not have been examined with
reference to the consequences or fallout of the meeting dated 11.07.2022.
Moreover, the authority of the General Council to deal with the relevant
matters could not have been brushed aside with reference to the strength of the
primary membership of the party. It is but clear that the Learned Single Judge
has not kept in view the relevant tests as expounded in the decisions above-
referred. In the present case concerning the internal management of the
political party, and looking to the nature of claim made by the plaintiffs, the
balance of convenience had not been in favour of granting any interim
injunction on the applications under consideration.
30. Having examined the matter in its totality, we are constrained to observe
that the Learned Single Judge in the present matter did not examine the
questions relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury in the
correct perspective and particularly failed to weigh the competing possibilities
and risk of injustice if ultimately the decision of main matter would run counter
to the course being adopted and suggested in the order granting temporary
injunction in the manner and form it was being granted. It gets perforce
reiterated that if the order as passed by the learned Single Judge was to
remain in force until decision of the suits, it would have been drastically
detrimental to the interest of political party in question, which is a recognised
political party with the Election Commission of India. In the matters of the
present nature, the simple and precise view, as stated by the Learned Single
Judge at the initial stage on 22.06.2022 while declining the prayer for interim
relief, had been on the correct statement of law that ordinarily the Court would
not interfere in the internal issues of an association/party and would leave it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
open to the association/party and its members to take a particular decision for
better administration; and that had been the correct approach towards the
facts of the case. In the present case, when General Council is shown to be the
apex body of the party, taking any exception to the meeting of the General
Council could have neither been countenanced nor interfered with by way of
temporary injunction. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the hyper-
technical suggestions as sought to be made about the want of valid notice with
reference to date, time and place of meeting i.e., with reference to Chapter 5
from Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings (supra) do not further
the cause of the appellants, particularly when it is noticed that the date, time
and place of the meeting in question were duly declared in the meeting dated
23.06.2022.
31. The submission on behalf of the appellants based on the decision in
S.Thirunavukkarasu (supra) that the scheme of byelaws does not envisage the
requisitions to convene the General Council meeting; and if the Co-ordinator
and the Joint Co-ordinator jointly fail to convene the meeting, the only option
is to seek intervention of the Court has its own shortcomings. As rightly noticed
by the Division Bench in the order impugned. in the said case, an expelled
member of the party called for a General Council meeting, parallel to the
meeting called by the then General Secretary. In the given fact situation, the
Court granted interim injunction in favour of the General Secretary against
convening of the parallel meeting. In the present matter, no parallel meeting of
General Council has been called for or requisitioned by any of the Members.
The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observed that as a general
rule, it cannot be laid down that the requisitions have no option but only to go
to the. Court if the meeting is not convened. It has also been pointed out that in
the past, when the interim General Secretary could not act in the year 2017,
the Office Bearers stepped in and convened the meeting based on a requisition
received. The present situation too, where the position as occupied earlier by
the General Secretary was assigned to the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-
ordinator in their jointness and it remains beyond a shadow of doubt that Co-
ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator do not stand in jointness and cannot act
jointly, is akin to the situation when the apex position holder was not in a
position to act. Obviously, a workable solution was to be found; and when the
solution as found and applied, does not otherwise appear offending the spirit of
byelaws as also the norms of functioning of an association or a party, it cannot
be said that declaration of the Presidium Chairman for the meeting of the
General Council on 11.07.2022 and the follow-up notice by the Office Bearers
at Party Headquarters had been wholly unauthorised.
32. Apart from the foregoing, the other considerations in the impugned
order dated 17.08.2022 which had prevailed with the Learned Single Judge
make it clear that the Learned Single Judge has proceeded contrary to the
sound and applicable judicial principles. It remains undeniable that law does
not envisage performance of any impossibility nor any mandate could be issued
by the Court for performance of a practical impossibility. The Learned Single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Judge expressed the view that when OPS and EPS had successfully functioned
jointly as Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator how the party, with more than
1.5 crore cadre strength, suddenly decided to change the existing dispensation.
With respect, in our view, such a question was not even germane to the points
for determination arising before the Court. As to how any compact, be it an
association or be it a political party, would manage its affairs and what
alterations its governing body would consider appropriate in its rules,
regulations or byelaws, are all the matters squarely within the domain of that
compact and its governing body. In any case, in the applications before the
Court, the only relevant question was about the validity of convening the
meeting dated 11.07.2022. The Learned Single Judge appears to have
traversed through such wide areas that ultimately the decision came to be
based on entirely irrelevant considerations. It is also noteworthy that the
ultimate injunction issued by the Learned Single Judge had been that of
restoring status quo ante as on 23.06.2022 and further to that, the Learned
Single Judge directed that the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator would
have to function jointly; meetings have to be called with their Joint consent;
and on being properly requisitioned, they would not refuse to convene the
General Council meeting and that they could approach the Court for necessary
directions for conducting the General Council meeting. Apart from the fact that
the injunction as issued by the Learned Single Judge had been far away and
beyond the scope of applications before him, the said injunction could have
only perpetuated the functional deadlock in the patty. The order passed by the
Learned Single Judge could not have been countenanced from any angle and
thus, the Division Bench, in our view, has rightly interfered with the same.
33. In the passing,. we observe that while find the suit and seeking interim
relief, the plaintiff OPS and even the other plaintiff, have arrayed the parties to
the litigation in the manner that the political party AIADMK, as also-its
General Council and its Central Executive Committee are said to be.
represented by "Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator" in terms of assertions of
these plaintiffs that the party and its governing/executing bodies are only to be
represented by the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator-jointly; This effort
on the part of the plaintiffs carries its own shortcomings when it remains
undeniable that they i.e., OPS and EPS, the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-
ordinator respectively, do not stand in jointness or even togetherness so as to
work cohesively as a unit. The effort on the part of the plaintiffs does not stand
in conformity with the existing realities.
34.Before closing on these matters, we need to make it clear again that though
several submissions have been made on behalf of the appellants assailing the
validity and correctness of the Resolutions said to have been adopted in the
meeting dated 11.07.2022 and in counter to that, the respondents have
attempted to justify the said decisions/Resolutions but we have chosen not to
deal with any of those contentions. This is for the specific reason that the
decisions taken in the meeting dated 11.07.2022 do not form the subject-matter
of the applications for temporary injunction, which were restored for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
reconsideration by this Court and were ultimately decided by the Learned
Single Judge by the order dated 17.08.2022 and then the intra-Court appeals
against that order of the Learned Single Judge were allowed by the Division
Bench on 02.09.2022. In the interest of justice, we leave all the related aspects
concerning the said Resolutions open to be agitated, but strictly in accordance
with law; and all the objections and rebuttals of the contesting parties are also
kept open.
35.1. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the scope of these
appeals, we have not found it necessary to deal with any of the impleadment
applications moved in these matters and we would leave it open for all such
applicants also to take recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law,
in case of any legal grievance existing with a right to seek relief in the
appropriate forum.
36. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeals arising out of
SLP(C) Nos. 15753 of 2022 and 15705-15706 of 2022 are required to be
dismissed, while affirming the impugned order dated 02.09.2022.
37. So far as the other appeals are concerned, therein, the aforesaid order
dated 23.06.2022 is in challenge. The operation and effect of the said order
was stayed by this court on 06.07.2022. As noticed, the said order dated
23.06.2022 has even otherwise lost its relevance. However, in order to put the
records straight, we deem it appropriate to make the stay order dated
06.07.2022 absolute so as to dispose of the appeals filed in challenge to the
said order dated 23.06.2022."
27. Thus, it is clear from the reading of the judgment of the Apex
Court dated 23.02.2023 that all the issues connected to the validity of the
convening of the meeting dated 11.07.2022 have been dealt with and the
reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court in its order dated
02.09.2022 was affirmed by the supreme court. Further, it is also clear from
the above recapitulation of the facts that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had by its
order dated 06.07.2022 permitted the General Council meeting to be held on
11.07.2022 and to proceed in accordance with law. The very same order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
06.07.2022 has also been made absolute in its subsequent judgment dated
23.02.2023 as stated supra. It is also to be noted that the Resolutions passed on
23.06.2022 as well as on 11.07.2022 were not disturbed upto the
pronouncement of the orders of the learned Judge in OA Nos.368, 370 and 379
of 2022 on 17.08.2022, which came to be set aside by the Division Bench on
appeals, and the same was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Thereafter, at no point of time, the convening of the General Council meeting
on 11.07.2022 was either injuncted or declared to be invalid. On the contrary,
the Supreme Court by its judgement dated 23.02.2023 has confirmed the order
of the Division Bench dated 02.09.2022 and held that the convening of the
meeting on 11.07.2022 was valid. Thus, these facts become very relevant to
decide the aspects of prima facie case as well as the balance of convenience
and irreparable injury, which are the deciding factors for grant or rejection of
the interim injunction and other interim reliefs prayed for by the appellants in
the original applications filed in the suits.
28. When the Apex Court has decided that the convening of the
General Council meeting was valid and that, the validity of the Resolutions
passed therein was to be decided by trial in the suits, and the taking of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
decisions of functioning of the party and convening of the General Council
meeting on 11.07.2022 was allowed to be proceeded in accordance with law
after two rounds of litigation, it is certainly open to challenge the validity of
the resolutions made therein in the further suits on their own merits. However,
what is to be decided in the present appeals is restricted to whether the
appellants have made out a case for grant of injunction or interim reliefs so as
to place the Resolutions made therein in abeyance pending disposal of the
suits. The present appeals therefore would be whether the learned Judge had
exercised his discretion in a manner that is both logical and reasonable, guided
by the principles of law as applicable to the given facts and circumstances,
which in turn would throw light on the triple factors of prima face case,
balance of convenience as well as irreparable injury.
29. Before examining the order under appeal from the aforesaid
standpoint, it is important to look at the Bye-laws of the AIADMK political
party. The following bye-laws are extracted for reference:
Rules & Regulations Rules & Regulations Rules and Regulations in
from 11.07.2022 from 12.09.2017 Tamil till 12.09.2017
Rule 5(vii) Rule 5(vii) tpjp 5 gpupt[ (7)
Members shall have no Members shall have no fHf rk;ge;jkhf ve;jg;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis gpur;rpidfs; gw;wpa[k;
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Rules & Regulations Rules & Regulations Rules and Regulations in
from 11.07.2022 from 12.09.2017 Tamil till 12.09.2017
right to resort to Court right to resort to Court tHf;F kd;wj;jpw;F
Proceedings regarding proceedings regarding bry;y fHf
Party matters. If any party matters. If any cWg; g pdu; f Sf; F cupik
Member of the Party ,y;iy/ mg;go
Member of the Party ahuhtJ fHf
resorts to any Court
proceedings against the resorts to any Court cWg; g pduhf ,Ug; gtu;
Party General Secretary's Proceedings against the fHfg; bghJr;
decision he/she shall cease Party Coordinator's and brayhsupd; Koit
vjpuj;;J tHf;F
to be a Primary Member Joint Coordinator's kd;wj;jpw;Fr; brd;why;
of the Party. decision he/she shall cease mtu; mog;gil
to be a Primary Member cWg; g pdu; jFjpia
The decision of the ,Hf;fpwhu;/
General Council shall be of the Party.
final with regard to Party bghJf; FGtpd;
matters and only those The decision of the Kont ,WjpahdJ/
who abide by this General Council shall be ,jw;Ff; fl;Lg;
condition are eligible to final with regard to party gLgtu;fs; kl;Lnk
admission for matters and only those fHf cWg;gpduhfr;
Membership. nru Koa[k;/
who abide by this
All those who have condition are eligible to fHfj;jpy; nrue;j
become Members of the admission for midtUk; bghJf;
KAZHAGAM are bound Membership. All those FGtpd; jP u ;g;gf
[ F; k;
by the decision of the who have become fl;Lg;gl;ltu;fs;
General Council. Mthu;fs;
Members of the
KAZHAGAM are bound
by the decision of the
General Council.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
RULE - 19 : GENERAL RULE - 19 : GENERAL tpjp 19 gpupt[ (1)
COUNCIL OF THE jiyikf; fHfg;
COUNCIL OF THE bghJf;FG
CENTRAL CENTRAL
ORGANISATION ORGANISATION
midj;jpe;jpa mz;zh
i)The General Council of jpuhtpl Kd;ndw;wf;
i) The General Council of fHf jiyikf; fHf
the AIADMK shall bghJf;FG ? bghJr;
the AIADMK shall consist
consist the Chairman, brayhsu;. Jizg;
of the Chairman, General bghJr; brayhsu; fs;.
Coordinator and Joint
Secretary, Treasurer,
Coordinator, Deputy mitj; jiytu;.
Headquarters Secretaries bghUshsu;. jiyik
Coordinators, Treasurer, fHf braw;FG
of the Party, the members
Headquarters Secretaries cWg;gpdu;fs;.
of the Central Executive
of the Party, the members khtl;l';fs; kw;Wk;
Committee, the members gpw khepy'; fspy;
of the Central Executive
of the General Council ,Ue;J
Committee, the members nju;eb ; jLf;fg;gLk;
elected from the Districts
of the General Council bghJf;FG
and other States, the
elected from the Districts cWg;gpdu;fs;.
Members of the Audit
and other States, the jiyikf; fHfr;
Committee, Property brayhsu;fs;. jzpf;if
Members of the Audit FG.
Protection Committee and brhj;Jf;
Committee, Property ghJfhg;gf
[ ; FG.
the Parliamentary Board.
Protection Committee and Ml;rpkd;wf; FG
The General Council shall
the Parliamentary Board. cWg;gpdu;fs;
be the Supreme body of
The General Council Mfpnahu;fs; ml';fpa
the party with all powers mikg; ghFk; /
shall be the supreme body ffHfj;jpd; KG
of the Kazhagam.
of the Party with all mjpfhu';fisf;
powers of the Kazhagam. bfhz;l jiyik
mikg;ghf bghJf;FG
mika[k;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
Rule 19 (viii) Rule 19 (viii) tpjp 19 gpupt[ (8)
The General Council The General Council will fHff; bfhs;iffis
will be the supreme be the supreme authority epiwntw;w tFg; gJ ? mtw;iw
jpl;l';fs;
authority to frame policies to frame policies and jPl;LtJ. fHfj;ij
elj;
and programmes of the programmes of the Party eltof;iffis j pr; bry;
y j; njitahd
vLg;gJ/
Party and for their and for their ,itfspy; ,Wjp
implementation. The implementation. KobtLf;f bghJf;FGnt
The mjpfhuk; bgw;w
decision of the General decision of the General mikg;ghFk;/
Council is final and Council is final and
binding on all the binding on all the
members of the Party. members of the Party.
Rule 43. Rule 43. AMENDMENTS tpjp 43 ? jpUj;jk;
AMENDMENTS
The General Council will The General Council will fHf rl;l jpl;l tpjpfis
have powers to frame, ,aw;wt[k; ? jpUj;jt[k; ?
amend or delete any of the have powers to frame, ePf;ft[k; bghJf;FG
mjpfhuk; gilj;
jjhFk;/
Rules the Party amend or delete any of the Mdhy; ,e;j
Constitution. Rules of the Party rl;l?jpl;l';fspd; mog;gil
Constitution. czu;thf cUthf;fg;gl;Ls;s
fHfg; bghJr; brayhsiu
But the Rule that the fHf bghJ cWg;gpdu;fs;
General Secretary nju;e;bjLf;f ntz;Lk; vd;w
should be elected only by tpjpia kl;Lk;
all the Primary members khw;
W tjw; nfh
jpUj;Jtjw;nfh cupajy;y/
of the Party cannot be
removed, changed or
amended since it forms
the basic structure of the
Party.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
30. A reading of the above Bye-laws would establish beyond doubt
that the General Council of the party is supreme. The contention of the learned
senior counsel for the appellants is that the Division Bench of this Court in its
order dated 02.09.2022 had specifically held that the issue of ‘lapse’ will have
to be taken up for trial in the pending suits and since the said findings had also
been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement dated
23.02.2023, Resolution No.3 which abolishes the posts of Co-ordinator and
Joint Co-ordinator based on the presumption that the said posts have lapsed in
view of the fact that the same had not been approved in the General Council
meeting held on 23.06.2022, should not be given effect to. It is further
contended that the further Resolutions, that is, the Resolution to appoint an
interim general secretary and the Resolution to appoint the election committee
to conduct the election of the general secretary and for the creation of the post
of general secretary, also stand vitiated. While it may be true that all the issues
touching upon the validity of the Resolutions would have to be decided on
their own merits on the basis of relevant material evidence in trial, the decision
on the interim reliefs to be granted will have to be decided on a prima facie
understanding of these issues and it may not be appropriate to say that this
Court is precluded from in any manner going into these issues while deciding
whether the interim reliefs as prayed for are to be granted to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
applicants/plaintiffs in the suits, who are the appellants herein. Once it is
established that for any Resolution to bring about an amendment to the
Bye-laws of the party, the ratification and approval of the General Council is
mandatory, the applicants/appellants (especially the first appellant) cannot
derive a perennial right from the Resolution passed by the Executive Council
without the same being ratified by the General Council. Further, even though
the first appellant was the co-ordinator, he was also part of the subsequent
factual developments wherein as many as 2460 members of the party had
expressed their wish to have a single leadership and on that basis, General
Council meeting was convened on 11.07.2022. It is pertinent to mention here
that the meeting held on 11.07.2022 was not restrained or injuncted by any
order. At different points of time, the appellants had approached this Court as
well as the Supreme Court in two rounds earlier, wherein the convening of
General Council meeting was never restrained. The Resolutions that were to
be passed on 11.07.2022 were also available before the Court in the earlier
round of litigation and inspite of that, considering the factors such as prima
facie case, balance of convenience as well as irreparable injury, this Court as
well as the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to injunct or restrain the
parties from proceeding with the General Council meeting on 11.07.2022.
Even in the subsequent order of the Supreme Court on 23.02.2023, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
convening of the General Council meeting was upheld. It cannot be gainsaid
that the impact of all these orders prior to the filing of the present suits and the
original applications from which the present appeals arise, cannot be brushed
aside and will have its own bearing in deciding these appeals. Importantly, the
balance of convenience as well as the irreparable injury that is contended to be
in favour of the first appellant in particular and the appellants in general, have
also been weighed not only by this Court earlier, but also by the Supreme
Court and the present appeals will also have to be decided only viewing the
facts from the prism of this undisputed factual backdrop, applying the legal
principles as applicable.
31. On the question of expulsion of the appellants from the party,
once again the issue will have to be decided on the basis of the powers of the
General Council and the relevant Bye-laws in this regard. This is an issue that
must be necessarily tried in the suits and it is for the parties to make out their
respective cases. While considering and weighing the important factors such
as prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it is to be
seen that what would be the comparative injury to both the parties and whether
the injury that will be occasioned to the applicants is such as being incapable
of being repaired/remedied in future, and in that view of the matter, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
balance of convenience must be decided in order to come to the conclusion as
to whether an interim relief that sits on the tripod of the three factors, viz.
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, must be
decided to be granted or rejected.
32. In such perspective, while examining the order under appeals, it is
seen that the learned Judge has dealt with three issues, viz.
a. whether the Resolution nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 dated 11.07.2022 passed
in the General Council meeting held by the second respondent are prima facie
illegal and arbitrary
b. whether the special Resolution passed by the General Council on
11.07.2022 is prima facie illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Bye-law number
35, and
c. whether the respondents are right in conducting an election to the
post of general secretary on 26.03.2023 or any other date pursuant to the
notice dated 17.03.2023.
a)Resolution No.3
33. With respect to Resolution No.3, abolishing the posts of
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, a reading of the order under appeals
would make it clear that before the learned Judge, the basic premise of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
contentions made by the applicants was that the notification for convening the
General Council meeting on 11.07.2022 itself is without authority and
therefore, the Resolutions passed in the General Council are prima facie bad.
To this, the learned Judge has rightly held that after the order passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court on 23.02.2023, it became clear that the convening of the
General Council on 11.07.2022 was not only permitted, but also held to be
valid, and that, this basic premise must necessarily fall to ground and hence,
fail. The further reasoning employed in the order under appeals is that under
Rule 43 of the Bye-laws, the General Council has the power to frame, amend
or delete any of the rules of the party constitution, and also that, out of 2665
members of the General Council, 2190 members had made a requisition to
convene the General Council and 2460 members had attended the meeting of
the General Council on 11.07.2022, and an overwhelming majority of the
General Council passed a Resolution on 11.07.2022 to amend the Bye-laws of
the first respondent, and as such, the learned Judge has on the basis of the
above facts, held that no prima face case has been made out for grant of
injunction against Resolution No. 3. We concur with these findings. In this
context, the decision in Raja Himanshu Tara Singh’s case [AIR 1962 ALL
439] that a body which is a creature of the rules of the party cannot perform
any function which it is not authorized to perform under the Bye-laws, is also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
relevant herein while dealing with the aspect of whether the decision to bring
about the two posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator can be held to be
valid without there being any ratification or approval of these Resolutions by
the supreme authority of the party.
34. Further, the learned Judge has held that since the convening of the
General Council was valid, and that no prima facie case has been made out by
the applicants/appellants for grant of injunction against Resolution No.3, the
aspects of balance of convenience and irreparable injury need not be gone into.
This reasoning cannot be found fault with on technical grounds. This is
primarily because when a prima facie case had not been made out for grant of
interim injunction, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury also had
not been made out for the very same reasons. The Supreme Court itself had left
it open to the parties to agitate on the validity or otherwise of the Resolutions
passed in the meeting held on 11.07.2022, the convening of which it had held
to be valid. At the risk of repetition, it is stated that when once the Supreme
Court had permitted the meeting on 11.07.2022 and further by way of a
detailed judgement dated 23.02.2023 stated that convening of the meeting is
valid and that, the Resolutions passed therein may be the subject matter of trial
in the suits, the aspect of prima facie case for grant of injunction is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
automatically taken out. When a prima facie case has not been made out, the
balance of convenience would definitely not lie in favour of the applicants and
it will be apposite to state that the injury that may be caused to the
applicants/plaintiffs cannot therefore be construed to be such as that cannot be
repaired by trial, that will ensue in the suits. On the contrary, the grant of any
interim relief/injunction to the appellants would amount to granting the
principal relief as prayed for in the suits itself, which cannot be done while
granting an interim injunction. Hence, the order of the learned Judge rejecting
the original applications seeking interim injunction, is hereby affirmed.
35. The further finding of the Learned Judge is that if the interim
injunction as prayed for is granted, it would revive the pre-11.07.2022
scenario, wherein the Party would have to necessarily be administered by the
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator jointly. This would touch upon the very
convening of the meeting on 11.07.2022 which has been held to be valid
specifically by the Supreme Court, which reasoning appears to be correct. In
such view of the matter, when once Resolution No.3 cannot be held to be
injuncted, the same reasoning must also follow for the other Resolution Nos.
4, 5 and 6, where also the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for
intervention by grant of interim injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
36. It may also be pertinent to mention here that in C.S. No. 119 of
2022 filed by Vairamuthu, OA No. 379 of 2022 was filed for the grant of
interim injunction restraining the respondents from passing any Resolution
relating to the abolition of the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator as
they were elected by the primary members of the party for a term of five years
as per bye-law 20A(ii) and 20A(iii), and consequently to direct the
respondents not to implement the Resolution/decision relating to item Nos. 3,
4, 5, 6, 7 mentioned in the notice dated 01.07.2022 in the alleged General
Council Meeting which is to be held on 11.07.2022 pending disposal of the
suit. This application was considered and was rejected by the Division Bench
in its order dated 02.09.2022 as confirmed by the judgment of the Supreme
Court dated 23.02.2023. The relief now sought for in the applications leading
to these appeals is fundamentally the same. It would therefore not be an
overstatement to say that any deviation from the judgment dated 23.02.2023 of
the Supreme Court, in these applications would be overreaching the said
judgment, and hence, is not permissible. The contention that there is no
res judicata against interim orders, will not apply to the case on hand, where
the judgment of the Supreme Court is a detailed one related to the same
parties, and on the same set of reliefs as prayed for in these applications.
Hence, the prayer of the appellants in this regard, fails.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
c) Special Resolution
37. On the aspect of deciding the grant of interim injunction in respect
of the special Resolution, whereby the applicants have been expelled from the
primary membership of the party, the Learned Judge has said that on account
of an infraction of Rule 35(vi) which prescribes the seven days’ notice before
any disciplinary action is taken, a prima facie case has been made out with
respect to this Resolution, but went on to hold in his discretion that inspite of
making out a prima facie case, the appellants have not made out a case for
balance of convenience or irreparable injury as the issue relating to whether
such an expulsion is valid or otherwise, can be gone into at the time of
deciding the issues in the suits. We are convinced that unless some urgent
factors that cannot brook even the shortest delay are brought out to establish
the irreparable injury that may be occasioned to the appellants due to this
special Resolution, the reasoning of the Learned Judge cannot be said to be
arbitrary or unreasonable so as to be interfered with, on the question of balance
of convenience and irreparable injury.
38. However, on the initial question of making out a prima facie case
for injunction against this Special Resolution expelling the appellants from the
Party, this Court takes a different view from that of the Learned Judge. When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
the Bye-laws make it amply clear that the General Council is the ultimate
authority to take disciplinary action against any member of the party, the
merits of the decision of the General Council in resolving to expel the
appellants is necessarily a matter for trial. The contention of the learned senior
counsel for the appellants in this regard is contradictory and self-defeating. In
one breath, it is contended that Rule 35 does not vest any power with the
General Council, and on the other hand, reliance is placed on the very same
Rule to underline the need for providing seven days’ notice before initiating
disciplinary action. If reliance is placed on Rule 35 for stressing upon the
requirement of notice, Rule 35 (xii) which authorises immediate disciplinary
action when deemed necessary, cannot also be disregarded. The contention
that Rule 35 vests power on the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator only and
not in the General Council, touches upon the interpretation of Rules 19 and 35,
their interplay, in view of the changed scenario, and the validity of the
Resolution to abolish the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, and by
virtue of our prima facie finding that in the absence of any approval of the
creation of these posts by the General Council, these posts and the resultant
amendments do not have force in law, these contentions do not have any merit
and are hence, rejected. Any finding given on the merits of this decision may
have a bearing on the suit and we consciously refrain from making any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
observations on the alleged facts on the basis of which the purported action of
expulsion was made and whether such facts merited emergent disciplinary
action or action after a detailed procedure, is a matter for trial. Again, this
Special Resolution was passed on 11.07.2022, was well before the order of the
Supreme Court on 23.02.2023, when it decided the validity of the convening
of the meeting on 11.07.2022. These factors demolish the case of the
appellants for grant of interim injunction and to that extent, we are in
disagreement with the order of the learned Judge to the extent that it states that
on this count, a prima facie case has been made out.
39. In our opinion, no prima facie case for grant of injunction has
been made out by the appellants in respect of the Special Resolution expelling
them from the primary membership of the Party and hence, the question of
balance of convenience tested on the anvil of irreparable injury need not be
gone into. We therefore hold that no case has been made out for grant of
interim injunction against the Special Resolution expelling the appellants from
the membership of the Party, pending disposal of the suits.
d) Election to the post of General Secretary
40. On the issue as to the conduct of the election for the post of
general secretary, it must be stated that this issue is also based on the previous
premise of the order passed by the Supreme Court holding as valid the meeting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
held on 11.07.2022. Any injunction with respect to the validity of these
Resolutions would mean that a pre-11.07.2022 situation would have to be put
in place and this would also mean that till the suit is completed, the party
would face a situation of being without leadership as there would be no
general secretary which also cannot be permitted. Further, this would mean
that the party would have to be run under the Joint leadership of the
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator which was not practically working out,
and which led to the change in scenario. That apart, when the meeting dated
11.07.2022 was convened and has now received the stamp of approval of the
Apex Court, the Resolutions adopted therein, most importantly relating to
electing the General Secretary on the lines of restoring single leadership of the
party, as has been the apparent majority wish, cannot be scuttled, before trial.
The reasoning of the learned Judge is also on these lines and hence, cannot be
held to be arbitrary or unreasonable in view of the fact that all issues
connected herewith can be remedied in the suits. Further, the election to the
post of General Secretary has already taken place and technically, this relief
has become infructuous. More importantly, when the appellants have been
expelled and there is no interim injunction against such action, pending the
suits, the election to the post of General Secretary, cannot be injuncted at their
instance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
VI. CONCLUSION
41. On the basis of the above reasoning and findings rendered on each
of the issues, we conclude that the appellants are not entitled for interim
injunction / relief as prayed for. Therefore, we do not intend to interfere with
the order of the learned Judge in rejecting the original applications filed by the
appellants herein.
42. In the result, all the Original Side Appeals are dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.M.D., J) (M.S.Q., J)
25.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rsh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
R. MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
rsh/rk
OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023
25.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
