TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....junction restraining the defendant Nos. 5 & 6 from convening the meetings of the General Body and the Executive Committee of the first respondent-society; (iii) for a declaration that the appointment of the fifth defendant (third respondent in this appeal) as patron for life of the first defendant­Society was unlawful; (iv) for a permanent injunction restraining the sixth defendant (second respondent in the appeal) from acting as the Secretary of the first defendant­Society and (v) for the appointment of a Commissioner to receive the list of members and to conduct free and fair election of office bearers of the first defendant­Society. 5. Along with the suit, the appellants/plaintiffs moved an Interlocutory Application i.e. I. A. No. 386 of 2018 seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from convening the meetings of the general Body and the Executive Committee on 5.5.2018. It appears that the appellants/plaintiffs also moved one more Interlocutory Application i.e. Interlocutory Application No.387 of 2018 seeking an injunction restraining the defendant nos. 5 & 6 from acting respectively as Patron and the Secretary. 6. It appears that the suit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2018 filed before the Sub­Court at Tuticorin under Order XLI, Rule 1 (r) of the Code, at the instance of the fifth defendant in the suit (third respondent herein), as against the very same order of injunction and, therefore, there was no justification for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. 12. Secondly, the High Court ought to have seen that when a remedy of appeal under section 104 (1)(i) read with Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was directly available, the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken recourse to the same. It is true that the availability of a remedy of appeal may not always be a bar for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 695) , this Court held that "though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the Constitutional powers of the High Court, it is a well recognized principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies before he resorts to a Constitutional remedy". 13. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction betwee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintiffs in the suit), the Sub­Court, Thoothukudi passed an order dated 22.04.2018 restraining the second respondent herein for acting as the Secretary of the first respondent­Society. This appeal arose out of the dismissal by the trial court, of an interlocutory application I.A.No. 387 of 2018 filed by the appellants herein for restraining the second respondent herein from acting as the Secretary and another person from acting as the Patron. The trial Court dismissed I.A.No.387 of 2018, but the plaintiffs filed an appeal in Civil Misc. Appeal No.7 of 2018. The same was allowed by an order dated 22.04.2018 by the Sub­court, Thoothukudi unseating the second respondent as the Secretary. Though the second respondent has claimed in his rejoinder, that the order passed in C. M. A. No. 7 of 2018 was challenged in a revision in CRP (MD) No. 1295 of 2019 and an order of status quo was obtained, from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the same happened after more than a year. Therefore, on the date on which the first respondent­Society filed the Civil Revision CRP (MD) No. 1084 of 2018 before the high court, the second respondent herein was not the secretary and cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting of the General Body and every attempt at holding elections to the first respondent­Society seem to have created a series of litigation before three different fora namely (i) the Civil Courts) (ii) the Registrar of Societies (iii) the High court (in Writ Petitions arising out of orders of the Registrar of Societies). This can be seen from the following table: S.No. Events which triggered the litigation Nature of the litigation Forum where filed Status 1. Notice convening the General Body and Executive Committee on 21.03.2015. Suit in O.S. No.79 of 2015 Sub­Court, Tuticorin. Despite undertaking to the Court, the meetings were held and office bearers elected 2. By proceeding dated 27.03.2015, second respondent was appointed as Secretary of the College Committee of the College run by the first respondentSociety. This was by virtue of the elections held on 21.03.2015. Writ Petition (MD) No.3869 of 2016 Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Pending 3. Form Nos.6 and 7 in terms of the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder were filed by the newly elected office bear....