2019 (10) TMI 1238 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns High Court decision, reinstates trial court's injunction, appoints Advocate Commissioner

Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. Versus Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors.

Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors. Versus Tuticorin Educational Society & Ors. - (2019) 9 SCC 538 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 Rs. 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.