1991 (1) TMI 461 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed, case remitted for fresh hearing. Retired judge appointed to oversee IOA. Trial court to expedite sub-application.

The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back to the trial court for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with the law. Pending the disposal ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the Special General Meeting convened on 15-6-1990.2. Validity of the resolutions passed during the Special General Meeting.3. Allegations of contempt of court and violation of court orders.4. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court to issue mandatory injunctions and restore status quo ante.5. Role and conduct of the parties involved in the alleged contempt.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Special General Meeting convened on 15-6-1990:The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the notice dated 28-5-1990 convening the Special General Meeting of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) on 15-6-1990 was illegal, null, and void. They also sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from conducting the meeting. The trial judge directed that the resolution be put to vote by secret ballot and that the meeting be presided over by the President of IOA, B.S. Adityan. Despite this, the meeting allegedly ended in chaos without any proper voting, and the court's order was not followed.2. Validity of the resolutions passed during the Special General Meeting:The plaintiffs contended that the resolutions passed during the meeting, including the no-confidence motion against the Executive Council and the election of a new President, were invalid due to the non-compliance with the court's order. The trial judge found that the resolution purportedly passed by V.C. Shukla as the President of IOA would be of no legal consequence and directed the restoration of the office premises to B.S. Adityan.3. Allegations of contempt of court and violation of court orders:The plaintiffs alleged that V.C. Shukla and his supporters violated the court's order by not allowing the voting by secret ballot and by creating disturbances during the meeting. The trial judge observed that there was no intimation or information about the court's order at the meeting, but found that the contention of lack of knowledge could not be accepted. The court's power to punish for contempt and to ensure compliance with its orders was emphasized.4. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court to issue mandatory injunctions and restore status quo ante:The court discussed its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles 215 and 225 of the Constitution of India to issue orders to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The court can grant mandatory injunctions to restore the status quo ante if the violation of its orders causes serious injury or if the defendant has shown a desire to evade the jurisdiction of the court.5. Role and conduct of the parties involved in the alleged contempt:The court examined the conduct of V.C. Shukla and his supporters during the meeting. The trial judge found that the plaintiffs were entitled to seek the prayer that the resolution passed by V.C. Shukla would be of no legal consequence. The court also considered the balance of convenience and the public interest in the administration of justice and sports.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back to the trial court for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with the law. Pending the disposal of the application, a retired judge of the Supreme Court was appointed to administer the IOA to ensure that the interests of sports and justice were protected. The trial court was directed to dispose of the sub-application as quickly as possible, preferably within two months.