1967 (7) TMI 132 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies interim injunctions in Commissioner appointment dispute, citing plaintiff's acquiescence and potential chaos.

S. Krishnaswamy and Ors. Versus South India Film Chamber of Commerce and Ors.

S. Krishnaswamy and Ors. Versus South India Film Chamber of Commerce and Ors. - AIR 1969 Mad 42 Issues Involved:1. Appointment of a Commissioner for seizure of documents.2. Interim injunctions restraining meetings and office-bearers.3. Validity of the election of office-bearers.4. Alleged irregularities in the voting process.5. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury.6. Plaintiff's conduct and acquiescence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Appointment of a Commissioner for Seizure of Documents:The plaintiff filed Application No. 1217 of 1967 for the appointment of a Commissioner to seize documents and records of the first defendant Society. The Advocate Commissioner submitted his report after carrying out the warrant of commission, and there is nothing further to be done in this matter.2. Interim Injunctions Restraining Meetings and Office-bearers:Applications Nos. 1215 and 1216 of 1967 were filed for interim injunctions to restrain respondents from holding a meeting for co-opting office-bearers and to prevent the elected office-bearers from holding office. The Court passed interim injunctions, which the respondents sought to vacate through Applications Nos. 1227 and 1228 of 1967.3. Validity of the Election of Office-bearers:The plaintiff contested the election for the Secretary's post and lost. He filed a suit for a declaration that the election of defendants 4 to 12 was illegal and ultra vires, and for a perpetual injunction restraining them from holding office. The plaintiff alleged irregularities and violations of the Society's rules, which he claimed vitiated the election.4. Alleged Irregularities in the Voting Process:- Producer Members: The plaintiff argued that 40 members were wrongly enrolled and allowed to vote, as they did not meet the definition of 'Producer member' under Rule 4.- Authorized Representatives: The plaintiff alleged violations of Rule 8 regarding voting by authorized representatives, claiming that authorizations were improperly submitted and that some representatives were not principal officers employed in the film business.- Arrears and Rejected Authorizations: The plaintiff claimed that members in arrears were allowed to vote after paying arrears on the election day, and some authorizations were wrongfully rejected.- Ballot Papers: The plaintiff objected to the ballot papers being in English, which some members did not understand.5. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury:The plaintiff argued that the constitution of the Chamber required representative deliberations and decisions, which would be prejudiced if the election was ultimately found invalid. The defendants countered that the interim injunction would paralyze the Chamber's functions and cause chaos. The Court found that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, as the Chamber had to address urgent and significant issues affecting the film industry.6. Plaintiff's Conduct and Acquiescence:The Court noted that the plaintiff, who had participated in the election and contested for a seat, did not raise any objections at the time of the election. The plaintiff's conduct of acquiescing in the election and then challenging it only after losing was deemed objectionable. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff did not come to Court with clean hands and had acquiesced in the very acts he later complained about.Conclusion:The Court refused the interim injunctions on the grounds of the plaintiff's acquiescence and wrongful conduct, and the balance of convenience favoring the defendants. The suit was directed to be posted for trial and disposal within two months, with specific timelines for filing written statements and mutual discovery and inspection. The interim injunctions were vacated, and the applications were dismissed without costs.