2009 (3) TMI 1095 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the General Secretary's position.
2. Validity of the judgment and decree in Suit No. 518/99.
3. Entitlement of the plaintiffs to relief claimed in the injunction application.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the General Secretary's position:
The plaintiffs contended that Mr. Bhandari wrongfully represented himself as the General Secretary of the Club since 1995, despite Mr. Arvinder Singh being elected to the position. No elections were held until 2005, and the results of the 2005 elections were stayed by court orders. Consequently, Mr. Bhandari's actions were unauthorized and illegal.

2. Validity of the judgment and decree in Suit No. 518/99:
The plaintiffs alleged that the judgment and decree dated 20th October 2002 in Suit No. 518/99 were fraudulently obtained by the Trust in collusion with Mr. Bhandari. The Club had failed to pay lease money as per the sub-lease agreement, leading to the Trust terminating the sub-lease and filing Suit No. 518/99 for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The Club's written statement admitted the Trust's ownership and the outstanding lease payments. The learned single Judge passed a decree in favor of the Trust, which was upheld by the Division Bench on 9th January 2009. The court found no grounds to re-examine the findings of the previous judgments.

3. Entitlement of the plaintiffs to relief claimed in the injunction application:
The court examined whether the plaintiffs, as members of the Club, were entitled to any relief based on their allegations. The plaintiffs cited previous judgments to support their claims of fraud. However, the defendants argued that the suit was an abuse of the court process, as the issues had already been decided by two courts. The court noted that the Club had authorized Mr. Bhandari to contest matters and file appeals, indicating awareness of the litigation. The court found the plaintiffs' allegations of fraud to be general and unsupported by evidence. The court concluded that the present suit was another round of unsustainable litigation and dismissed the application for interim injunction, stating that no prima facie case or balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs.