9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Litigation involving South Eastern Railway Mens' Union, challenge against revisional order for temporary injunction, validity of elections, interference with day-to-day functioning, relevance of subsequent events, request for fresh elections. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a dispute within the South Eastern Railway Mens' Union, involving the challenge against a revisional order for a temporary injunction. The appeal was filed by the defendant against the order passed by the Calcutta High Court, which declined to interfere with the temporary injunction granted in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought a declaration as a duly appointed office bearer of the Union and an injunction against the defendant from interfering with his role as the General Secretary. The trial Court initially rejected the prayer for the temporary injunction, but the Appellate Court granted it, restraining the defendant from intervening in the day-to-day administration of the Union and the operation of the bank account. The defendant contested this order, highlighting subsequent events, including multiple elections and changes in office bearers, to argue for the vacation of the injunction. The main contention raised by the defendant was that subsequent events, such as new elections and the recognition of different office bearers, rendered the injunction unnecessary and disruptive to the Union's functioning. The defendant emphasized that the plaintiff was no longer an office bearer or a member of the Union, and multiple elections had taken place without his participation. On the other hand, the plaintiff's counsel argued that the defendant's challenge was a mala fide move and suggested that any challenge to the elections should be addressed through the Appellate Court for modification of the injunction. The plaintiff's counsel also proposed a fresh election under the supervision of the Court for the proper management of the Union's affairs. The Court observed that the dispute had lost its relevance due to the passage of time and subsequent events, including the cessation of both parties as Union members and the recognition of new office bearers through successive elections. Continuing the litigation was deemed futile, and the Court emphasized the importance of not quashing valid elections for the sake of democratic functioning within the Union. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order and directing the expeditious disposal of the pending suit within three months. The interim orders were vacated, and each party was directed to bear its respective costs.
|
