Madras High Court
V.G.Roshan Rujath vs / on 3 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 20.09.2024
Pronounced on : 03.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.S.No.236 of 2022
and
A.No.2247 of 2023
and
O.A.Nos.697 and 698 of 2022
V.G.Roshan Rujath ..
Plaintiff
/versus/
1.Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference,
Jain Bhavan, No.12, Sahid Bhagad Singh Marg,
Gole Market,
New Delhi -110 001.
2. Shri Anandmal Challani Jain,
Defacto National President,
Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference
Son of Jawarilal Challani,
3rd Floor, Challani Plaza,
No.36, Veerappan Street,
Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 079.
3. Shri Rajendra Prasad Kothari Jain,
4. Shri Atul Jain,
General Secretary,
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference
45/3/1, Main Church Road,
Thaper farm, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi - 110 070.
5. Padamchand Kantaria,
Treasurer,
Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference
No.24, Vanniyar Street,
Porur, Chennai - 116.
6. Shri Prasanna Kumar Sanchethi,
7. Shri Mahaveer Chand Ranka Jain
8. Shri Dharmichand Dhanraj Khabiya Jain
(Election 2021-2023)
The National Chief Election Officer (Election 2021-2023)
Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference
Jain Bhavan, No.12, Sahid Bhagad Singh Marg,
Gole Market, New Delhi - 110 001.
9. Shri Ajit Challani Jain,
The National Co-Election Officer (Election 2021-2023)
Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference,
Jain Bhavan, No.12, Sahid Bhagad Singh Marg,
Gole Market,
New Delhi - 110 001.
10. Shri Rajiv Jain
The National Co-Election Officer (Election 2021-2023)
Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference,
Jain Bhavan, No.12, Sahid Bhagad Singh Marg,
Gole Market, New Delhi - 110 001.
11. Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference,
Tamil Nadu State Branch
Represented by its President,
No.150, Brick Kiln Road,
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1st Floor, Dhruvi Apartment, Otteri, Chennai - 12.
12. Shri.Goutam Chand Kataria Jain,
83, Eldams Road,
Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
13. Shri Tarachand Dugar,
Tamil Nadu State Election Officer (2021-2023)
Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference,
7th Floor, Dugar Towers,
123, Marshalls Road,
Near Rajarathinam Stadium
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
14. Shri Mohanlal Chopra,
Ex-Chairman of Viswast Mandal, Trust of
Shri All India Swethamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference,
Jain Bhavan,
No.12, Sahid Bhagad Singh Marg,
Gole Market, New Delhi - 110 0001. .. Defendants
This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original
Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, 1908, prayed for a
judgment and decree against the Defendants:-
(i)Declare the resolution of the National Election Committee
passed by the defendants 8 to 10 dated 07.08.2021 as arbitrary, illegal,
void ab - initio and contrary to bye-laws of 1st defendant;
(ii) Declare the resolution/circular dated 03.10.2021 issued by
the National Election Committee comprising defendants 8 to 10,
declaring the 2nd defendant as the President of first defendant for the
period 2021-2023 as illegal and void ab-initio, ultra vires bye laws of the
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1st defendant society;
(iii) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 13
their men, servants, agents or any person claiming through them from in
any manner acting as office bearer of 1st defendant society or pass
resolutions on behalf of first defendant society;
(iv) Declare the resolution / circular dated 03.10.2021 issued by
the 13th defendant declaring the 12th defendant as the State President of
11th defendant for the period 2021-2023 as illegal and void ab-initio,
ultra vires the bye laws of the 1st defendant society;
v)Costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan
For Defendants : Ms.Jayanthi K.Shah
*********
JUDGMENT
A.No.2247 of 2023 is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 Original
Side read with order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of C.P.C to reject the plaint
in C.S.No.236 of 2022.
2. The first respondent in A.No.2247 of 2023 is the plaintiff in
the suit.
3. The first plaintiff filed the suit seeking (a) to declare the
resolution of National Election Committee passed by the defendants 8 to
10, dated 07.08.20211 as arbitrary, illegal, void ab - initio and contrary to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bye-laws of the 1st defendant.
(b) to declare the resolution / circular dated 03.10.2021 issued
by the National Election Committee comprising defendants 8 to 10,
declaring the 2nd defendant as the President of first defendant for the
period 2021-2023 as illegal and void ab-initio, ultra-vires the bye laws of
the 1st defendant / society;
(c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 13
their men, servants, agents or any person claiming through them from in
any manner acting as office bearer of 1st defendant / society or pass
resolutions on behalf of first defendant society;
(d) declare the resolution / circular dated 03.10.2021 issued by
the 13th defendant declaring the 12th defendant as the State President of
11th defendant for the period 2021-2023 as illegal and void ab-initio,
ultra-vires the bye laws of the 1st defendant / society and
(e) Mandatory injunction for appointing a Receiver to take
charge of the affairs of the first defendant / society including the 11 th
defendant / state unit and conduct elections afresh in accordance with
bye-laws of the first defendant / society.
4. The defendants D2, D3, D5, D6, D12 and D13 were served.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. In the written statement, it is inter-alia contended on the
ground that no cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court,
stating that the Registered Office of the second respondent / society is at
New Delhi and as per bye-law, any litigation concerning the society ought
to have been filed only in New Delhi and referred to Clause 20 of the bye
- laws which makes the provision of the arbitration clause.
6. In the bye-laws, it is specifically mentioned that any legal
dispute with regard to the registered office of the Jain conference located
in New Delhi and only the Court at New Delhi will have jurisdiction to
decide the said dispute, besides, there is arbitration clause.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and
defendants and perused the records.
8. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that the
applications are filed under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C for rejection of
the plaint on the ground that the Society is registered at New Delhi and as
per the bye-laws, the jurisdiction lies within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Registered Office and there is a specific arbitration Clause. He relied
upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 15546 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 04.12.2023, wherein it has been held that, in view of the arbitration
Clause as against the very same defendants herein it was held that in view
of the arbitration clause, Civil Suit is not maintainable.
9. In the said case, the matter was referred to arbitrator as per
the bye-laws and that was challenged before the Delhi High Court and
Delhi High Court concurred that even in the matters relating to the office
bearers of the Society, arbitration is the remedy.
10. After perusing the docket order, I found that this Court has
granted leave to sue to the plaintiff before this Court.
11.For any dispute in the Jain conference, the complainant
must make a complaint to the National President of the Jain Conference.
If the complainant is not satisfied with the decision of the National
President, they will get their complaint lodged to the National
Management Committee. On receipt of the complaint, the National
Management Committee will deliberate and form a Arbitration
Committee. If they are not satisfied with the decision of the Arbitration
Committee, they will be able to go for further legal proceedings.
12. I have the benefit of going through the judgment dated
04.12.2023, passed by the Delhi High Court in the above said W.P.(C)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.14221 of 2023.
13. A reading of the bye-laws of the Society shows that there
were a two-step machinery that has been provided in respect of any
grievance. The first step is a complaint to the National President. If the
decision of the National President is not satisfactory, then the
complainant can file complaint to the National Management Committee
and the National Management Committee will deliberate and form an
arbitration Committee.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff stated that
since the challenge is to the election of National President, the arbitration
clause is not an alternative remedy.
15. It remains to be stated that in view of the specific provision
as stated supra, the point of jurisdiction lies with the Delhi High Court
and the Delhi High Court, on the very same set of facts in respect of
election, has taken a view that in view of Clause 20 of the bye-laws of the
Society, providing for arbitration application filed therein for referring the
matter for arbitration, is just and fair and rejected the contention of the
petitioner therein.
16. On a perusal of the arbitration Clause, it demonstrates that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the bye-laws of the Society cover all disputes arising out of functioning of
the Society, including the election.
17. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that Section 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act is clear and it is necessary for the Court
to refer the parties to the arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause.
18.In the instant case, Civil Suit has been filed. I find that the
order passed by the Delhi High Court cited above squarely covers the
issue in respect of dispute relating to election also and the arbitration
clause in the bye-laws which shall operate.
19. Besides, the jurisdiction is at Delhi and this factum was not
brought to the notice of this Court while this Court has granted leave to
sue and I have not hesitation to reject the contention of the learned
counsel for the plaintiffs.
20. Hence, in view of the above discussion I find that the
jurisdiction is at Delhi and civil Suit is not maintainable here and it can be
only as per arbitration Clause as observed by the Delhi High Court in the
above cited decision. On both score, this application is allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. In the result,
(i) A.No.2247 of 2023 is allowed and C.S.No.236 of 2022 is
rejected and consequently, connected applications O.A.Nos.697 and 698
of 2022 are closed.
(ii) It is hereby made clear that rejection of this plaint will not
prevent the parties to agitate their rights under the arbitration Clause 20
before the Arbitration Court which has the jurisdiction as per the bye-
laws of the Society.
(iii) There shall be no order as to costs.
03.10.2024
nvi
Neutral citation : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.
nvi
Judgment in
C.S.No.236 of 2022 and
A.No.2247 of 2023 and
O.A.Nos.697 and 698 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
03.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
