9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1238 - SC - Indian LawsVacation of interim order of injunction granted by the trial Court - HELD THAT - Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure itself mandates the disposal of an application for injunction within 30 days, whenever an injunction was granted without notice to the opposite party. In this case, the trial Court, without granting an ex parte order of injunction, chose to allow the opposite parties to file counter affidavit(s) along with documents and then heard the opposite parties before allowing the application for injunction - Finding the line of demarcation between speedy disposal and hurried dispatch, with mathematical precision, is not possible - The High Court unfortunately did not even deal with the matter on merits to over turn the decision of the Trial Court. Therefore, the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the order of the Trial Court is liable to be restored. This is a case where every meeting of the General Body and every attempt at holding elections to the first respondent Society seem to have created a series of litigation before three different fora namely (i) the Civil Courts) (ii) the Registrar of Societies (iii) the High court (in Writ Petitions arising out of orders of the Registrar of Societies). The only way to bring to an end all the litigations between the parties before various fora is to set aside the impugned order and the elections held pursuant thereto and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to convene the General Body as well as the Executive Committee for the election of office bearers. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the high court as well as the elections purportedly held pursuant to the order of the High Court are set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227. 2. High Court's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 3. Legitimacy of the High Court's decision to set aside the trial court's injunction. 4. Validity of the actions taken during the interim period, including meetings and elections. 5. Resolution of ongoing litigations and appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227: The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, filed by the respondents, against an interim injunction order by the trial court. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court overlooked the fact that an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was already pending before the Sub-Court at Tuticorin. The High Court should have directed the respondents to avail the appellate remedy under CPC rather than invoking its supervisory jurisdiction. 2. High Court's Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction: The High Court justified its supervisory jurisdiction by citing decisions related to keeping subordinate courts within legal bounds. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that when an appellate remedy under CPC is available, it should be considered a near-total bar to invoking Article 227, especially in civil court proceedings. The High Court's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction was deemed inappropriate in this context. 3. Legitimacy of the High Court's Decision to Set Aside the Trial Court's Injunction: The High Court criticized the trial court for hastily granting the injunction. However, the Supreme Court noted that the trial court had duly considered the pleadings and documents from both parties before granting the injunction. The High Court's decision to set aside the injunction without addressing the merits was found to be unjustified. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's order, emphasizing that the High Court should have remanded the matter if it found procedural haste. 4. Validity of the Actions Taken During the Interim Period, Including Meetings and Elections: After the High Court set aside the injunction, the second respondent proceeded with the scheduled meetings and elections. The Supreme Court acknowledged that these actions were taken before the interim status quo order in the special leave petition. However, given the series of litigations and the High Court's oversight of the second respondent's disqualification as Secretary, the Supreme Court decided to set aside both the High Court's order and the elections conducted pursuant to it. 5. Resolution of Ongoing Litigations and Appointment of an Advocate Commissioner: The Supreme Court aimed to resolve the ongoing disputes by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the election process. The Commissioner was tasked with: - Addressing letters to sponsoring bodies for nominating members to the General Body and Executive Committee. - Convening meetings and holding elections as per the bye-laws. - Ensuring the registration of election forms with the Registrar of Societies to prevent further litigation. - Acting as the Secretary of the first respondent society until the elections are held and results declared. The Advocate Commissioner was to be remunerated ?1,00,000 by the first respondent society, along with reimbursement of expenses. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and the elections conducted under it. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was directed to ensure a fair and litigation-free election process for the first respondent society.
|
