A.No.163 of 2009
1. All India Nayudu Sangam rep by its General Secetary, 1, Sarangapani Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
2. P.S.Jagannathbabu
3. T.Badradri,
4. R.Ravinder
5. B.Bhuvaneswararao
6. W.S.Jayaprakash
7. K.Sreenath
8. L.Grahalakshmi
9. P.S.Jayaprakash
10. R.Krishnamurthy
11. T.Narayana Rao
12. M.J.Damodaran
13. P.R.Venkatasubba Rao
14. P.S.Suresh Babu
15. M.Venkatesan
16. K.Balaiah
17. G.Dhananjayam
18. N.A.Karunakaran
19. K.K.Govindarajulu
20. Chengai Padmanabhan Respondents vs.
3. Original Application No.1331 of 2008 is filed seeking an order of mandatory injunction directing the first respondent Sangam to conduct an election of the office bearers of the first respondent Sangam in accordance with the rules and regulations of the All India Nayudu Sangam by appointing an officer of this court to oversee the election.
4. Original Application No.1332 of 2008 is filed seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent from giving effect to the order of suspension and removal as against the first applicant and the order of suspension passed as against the second applicant.
5. The respondents have filed Application No.163 of 2009 in Original Application Nos.1332 of 2008 seeking to vacate the order of interim injunction granted by this court.
6. Application No.5883 of 2008 is filed seeking to appoint a retired Judge as Administrator pendente lite to discharge the functions and duties of the first respondent.
7. As all these applications are inter connected and a common order would serve the purpose, all these applications are taken up together for common disposal. To avoid confusion, the applicants in Original Application Nos.1329 to 1332 of 2008 and Application No.5883 of 2008 are referred to herein as plaintiffs and respondents in Application No.1329 to 1332 of 2008 and Application No.5883 of 2008 and applicant in Application No.163 of 2009 are referred to herein as defendants.
8. Case in brief of the plaintiffs:- The first defendant is All India Nayudu Sangam having its office in Chennai. The functions of the first defendant Sangam shall be in accordance with the rules framed by the Sangam. Both the plaintiffs are the members of the first defendant Sangam. The Executive Committee has the power to suspend or dismiss the members of the first defendant if a member is found to have acted against the interest of the Sangam. The second defendant had a grouse as against the plaintiffs. The second defendant issued show cause notices dated 14.6.2008 and 18.5.2008 seeking for explanation from the plaintiffs as to why they should not be removed from the first defendant Sangam for their illegal and prejudicial activities as against the Sangam. The plaintiffs submitted a detailed reply dated 26.6.2008 and 28.5.2008 respectively on receipt of the show cause notices. But, to the utter shock and dismay, plaintiffs 1 and 2 have received a communication from the first defendant suspending and removing the first plaintiff and suspending the second plaintiff from his primary membership of the first defendant for a period of five years. They were also subsequently issued with the order of removal. The impugned orders were passed by the second defendant, actuated by malice and hatred. The removal of the plaintiffs from the primary membership is in utter violation of the Constitution of the first defendant Sangam. The second defendant is purported to have convened a farce general body meeting on 26.10.2008 in and by which the election of the office bearers of the first defendant Sangam was conducted. The mode of service of notices as contemplated under the bylaws has not been adhered to by the Sangam. About 405 new members who were enrolled as eligible electorate to participate in the Sangam election were not informed of the election. The election process is vitiated on account of non issuance of 21 days of clear notice to the members of the Sangam in the prescribed mode as contemplated in the bylaws of the first defendant. There was no valid notification of the election. Unless an election of the office bearers to the Sangam is conducted afresh, the smooth functioning of the Sangam will not be achieved. The plaintiffs did not indulge in any prejudicial act which would undermine the reputation of the first defendant and as such the removal of the plaintiffs from the first defendant Sangam is opposed to the principles of natural justice. The present office bearers of the Sangam cannot exercise their powers inasmuch as the election is vitiated by fraud and irregularities. Hence, the plaintiffs have sought for the aforesaid reliefs.
9. Case in brief of the defendants:- The then General Secretary Mr.K.Santhanam started functioning arbitrarily in accepting the applications for admission of new members into the Sangam. The Executive Committee alone can consider the application of any person seeking to become a member of the Sangam. The decision of the Executive Committee shall be final and binding on such matters. The receipt of applications were not brought to the notice of the Executive Committee for proper scrutiny in a validly convened Executive Committee Meeting by the then President. Contrary to the resolution passed by the Executive Committee on 24.4.2008, the then General Secretary K.Santhanam wrote a letter dated 8.5.2008 to the Registrar of Societies about the alleged induction of 405 new members for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.4.2008. Without there being any approval by the Executive Committee, the then General Secretary had despatched form VII to the Registrar of Societies. He was called upon through a show cause notice dated 10.5.2008 to offer his explanation as to how he had inducted 405 new members without the approval of the Executive Committee. The plaintiffs started dealing with the properties as their own personal properties. They misused their official position and copied certain vital information of the Sangam in a compact disk. The compact disk was taken away without the prior permission or knowledge of the office bearers of the Sangam. A show cause notice dated 18.5.2008 was issued to the second plaintiff and another show cause notice dated 14.6.2008 was issued to the first plaintiff pursuant to the decision taken by the Executive Committee. The second plaintiff had chosen to tear away the notices pasted in the Sangam Office with regard to suspension of the then General Secretary K.Santhanam. The first plaintiff sent a reply to the show cause notice on 26.6.2008 whereas the second plaintiff sent a reply on 28.5.2008. It was unanimously decided by the Executive Committee to remove the second plaintiff from the post of Treasurer and also from the primary membership of the Sangam for a period of five years as per the bylaws. The Executive Committee of the Sangam met on 24.6.2008 as there was no reply from the first plaintiff and resolved to remove the first plaintiff from the primary membership of the Sangam for a period of five years as per the bylaws. The first plaintiff sent a reply on 26.6.2008 only after receipt of the order of suspension from the first defendant. The plaintiffs proceeded to open a website without the consent and approval of the Sangam unauthorisedly. They also started collecting money from outsiders towards matrimonial services registration fees. Such a conduct of the plaintiffs are against the interest of the Sangam. The Sangam held an emergency Executive Committee meeting on 2.10.2008 and decided to conduct the 85th Annual General Body Meeting on 26.10.2008. In the Executive Committee Meeting that was held on 10.10.2008, a decision was taken to the effect that the applications received from 405 new persons seeking membership would be taken up for scrutiny by the new Committee to be formed after the Annual General Body Meeting. The Annual General Body Meeting of the Sangam was held on 26.10.2008 and the office bearers were elected unopposed and the Executive Committee was formed. The General Body unanimously approved the suspension of the plaintiffs from the respective posts in the Executive Committee as well as their removal from the primary membership of the Sangam. Clear 21 days notice to the members of the Sangam was given by publication and also by sending notices by courier and registered post. Therefore, the defendants have sought for dismissal of the applications filed by the plaintiffs and also seek to vacate the order of injunction granted as against the defendants.
10. The court has to address the issue of removal of the plaintiffs from the first defendant Sangam keeping in mind the scope of interference of the court in the affairs of the Sangam registered under the Societies Registration Act. The court also will have to address the issue as to whether the election of the office bearers of the first defendant Sangam was conducted as per the rules framed by the Sangam.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that beforeever the show cause notice was served on the first plaintiff, the order of suspension was served on him with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance as against the plaintiffs who brokered peace between the General Secretary K.Santhanam and the second defendant. The show cause notices were issued as against the plaintiffs and they were deprived of their primary membership. The principles of natural justice was not adhered to in showing the doors to the plaintiffs, it was argued.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would vehemently contend that there were grave charges as against the plaintiffs which culminated in issuance of show cause notices to them. The Executive Committee took a decision unanimously that both the plaintiffs will have to be removed from the primary membership. The Annual General Body also confirmed the decision taken unanimously by the Executive Committee of the Sangam. Therefore, the scope of interference with the decision unanimously taken by the Executive Committee and ultimately approved by the Annual General Body cannot be simply ignored by the court. But, as far as the first plaintiff is concerned, he would fairly submit that though show cause notice was despatched to the first plaintiff as early as on 14.6.2008, the first defendant did not receive any acknowledgment from the first plaintiff.
13. All India Nayudu Sangam, the first defendant herein is governed by the rules and regulations framed by it. Rule XVI of the Rules and Regulations would read that if any member is found to have acted against the interest of the Sangam, the Executive Committee is vested with the powers to suspend such a member for a period not exceeding five years. Such suspended member may be re-admitted at their request and by the approval of the General Body. A show cause notice shall be served on such members to call for explanation to the charges levelled against them.
14. One of the staff members Smt.G.Jayachithra, attached to the first defendant Sangam, by her letter dated 2.5.2008 communicated to the second defendant that on 1.5.2008 at 10.45 am, the second plaintiff, who was the life member and Treasurer of the first defendant Sangam asked for the office back up CD of Patron/Life Members and bride and bridegroom details. When she refused to co-operate with the second plaintiff, the latter took away the CD with her saying that she would take a copy of the CD and give back to the General Secretary. She has also disclosed that the CD was returned on 2.5.2008 at 12.00 noon. Some of the members had revolted against the act of the second plaintiff. Yet another member had complained that the plaintiffs were attempting to make monetary and social gains by projecting their photographs in the website opened by them in the name of All India Nayudu Sangam. The defendants produced the web page opened by the plaintiffs to establish prima facie that the plaintiffs, with their photographs, have opened the website in the name of All India Nayudu Sangam. The logo of the said Sangam also is found incorporated in the website opened by them. The grave allegation made by the first defendant Sangam is that the first plaintiff, having taken away the CD containing the bride and bridegroom details maintained by the Sangam, stealthily opened such a website in the very name of the first defendant Sangam. Against the aforesaid background of the development, it is found that a show cause notice dated 18.5.2008 was issued to the second plaintiff. She, having received the same, gave a reply on 28.5.2008 refuting the charges made against her.
15. The first plaintiff is none other than the husband of the second plaintiff. Having come to know that the first plaintiff wielded undue influence on Mrs.Jayachithra, the staff member of the Sangam, who divulged the above information regarding the activity of the second plaintiff, to withdraw her letter dated 2.5.2008 and also the fact that the first plaintiff tore of the notice warning the erstwhile General Secretary K.Santhanam not to enter into the premises displayed on the notice board, show cause notice was issued to the first plaintiff.
16. The show cause notice issued to the first plaintiff bears the date 14.6.2008. There is a specific reference in the show cause notice that a decision was taken in the emergency Executive Committee Meeting that was convened on 15.6.2008. The order of suspension was issued to the first plaintiff on 24.6.2008. In the said order of suspension communicated to the first plaintiff, it has been made clear that the emergency Executive Committee Meeting was held on 14.6.2008 and not on 15.6.2008 and the show cause notice was sent on 18.6.2008 and not on 14.6.2008 as found apparent in the show cause notice. The aforesaid mistakes committed by the first defendant is taken advantage of by the first plaintiff to set up a plea that even before the Execution Committee met and decided to issue the show cause notice, the show cause notice was issued. The inadvertent clerical mistake committed by the first defendant cannot be a ground to put up a challenge to the show cause notice issued to the first plaintiff.
17. In the Executive Committee Meeting that was held on 2.10.2008, a painful decision to suspend the second plaintiff as per Rules 15 and 16 of the bylaws of the Sangam was taken and the same was communicated to the second plaintiff on 6.10.2008. But, as far as the first plaintiff is concerned, he has established before the court that he has received the show cause notice dated 26.5.2008 after the order of suspension was issued by the first defendant on 24.6.2008. It is found that the General Body which met on 26.10.2008 unanimously approved the suspension of the plaintiffs from their posts in the Executive Committee as well as removal of their primary membership from the first defendant Sangam.
18. In T.P.DAVER v. LODGE VICTORIA (AIR 1963 SC 1144), the observations made in O.REILLY v. CYRIL CUTHBERT GITTENS (AIR 1949 PC 313) and the decision in MACLEAN v. WORKERS' UNION (1929-1 CH. 602) were relied upon to lay down the law as to the scope of interference into the affairs of the club by the court. The observations made in those two cases heavily relied upon by the Supreme Court in T.P.DEVAR'S case, lays down the following principles:-
"1. The court is not entitled to sit as court of appeal over the decisions of the club or society.
2. The club/society or domestic tribunal are entitled to decide all matters as it thinks right.
3. They shall not exceed their jurisdiction or act dishonestly or in bad faith.
4. The court is not supposed to interfere in their decision even if, in its opinion, the penalty imposed on the member is severe or that a very strict standard has been applied.
5. A person, who joins an association governed by rules, has no legal right of redress if he is expelled from the association according to the rules however unfair or unjust the rules or the actions of expulsion may be, provided it has acted in good faith. But, it should be borne in mind that chance of defence and explanation should be afforded to the member as required by the principles of natural justice beforeever a decision is taken by an association."
19. As regards the scope of interference, this court in S.KRISHNASWAMY v. S.I.FILM CHAMBER (AIR 1969 Madras 42) has laid down the broad principles as follows:-
"In the case of clubs and Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the general principles governing the right of suit of an individual share holder or a member of the Company would apply and ordinarily the Court will not interfere with the internal management of the Society at the instance of one or some only of the members of the Society subject to well recognised exceptions (1) where the impugned act is ultra vires of the Society, (2) the act complained of constitutes fraud or (3) whether the impugned action is illegal. The Rules are made by the Society itself for the convenience of its members for regulating their own conduct as members and for regulating the affairs of the Society as an entity. A breach of any Rule made by the Society would not give rise to a cause of action for any member to rush to Court, it must be a case of manifest illegality or where the act of omission or commission is something which goes to the root of the matter. All the members would be bound by the decision taken by the general body though there may be some violation of some Rules provided it is something which could well be condoned and ignored by the general body."
20. Primarily the court will have to search and find whether the action initiated by the society/association is beyond the scope of the bylaws governing the society/association and whether the material part of the bylaw governing the association/society was adhered to by it before taking a decision. The court also will have to see whether the principles of natural justice was adopted in initiation of the proceedings as against the members of the association/society.
21. In yet another decision reported in CHENNAI KANCHI TIRUVELORE DISTRICT FILM DISTRIBUTOR ASSOCIATION v. CHINTHAMANI S.MURUGESAN (2001 (3) CTC 349), a Division Bench of this court observed as follows:-
"The plaintiff has, in this case clearly, failed to establish the case of mala fides. The Executive Committee has acted in good faith and taken a decision with which the Court may, or may not agree. The standard adopted by that Executive Committee may have been far more strict then what the Court in the given circumstances may have adopted. But those considerations are not irrelevant for the purpose of deciding as to whether the Court can, or cannot interfere with a bona fide decision taken by the Executive Committee.
As regards the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court, if satisfied that there has been broad fairness must refrain from interfering with the action taken by the voluntary association of which the plaintiff chose to become a member of his own volition. Natural justice in the conduct of such associations would not have the same degree of rigour, as those principles would have in matters which are required to be adjudicated upon before Courts and Tribunals."
The bona fide decision taken by the Executive Committee in all fairness applying the broader principles of natural justice shall not be interfered by the court. The court is not supposed to see whether the aforesaid principles have been strictly with all rigors adhered to by the association as is adhered by the courts and tribunals.
22. In the above background of the principles enunciated by the court of law, the painful decision taken by the second defendant on behalf of the first defendant will have to be decided. Of course, the plaintiffs, being members of the Sangam, have every right to know the names and addresses of co-members as per the Societies Registration Act. But, the defendants have established prima facie that there were grave charges as against the second plaintiff that she had hijacked the matrimonial information exclusively owned by the Sangam and opened a website in the very name of the Sangam with its logo. In the considered decision of the Executive Committee, such an act of the second plaintiff is against the interest of the Sangam. The show cause notice is contemplated under the bylaw was issued. The second plaintiff's explanation was also considered by the Executive Committee. It took an unanimous decision to expel the second plaintiff from the Sangam.
23. It is demonstrated by the defendants that the action of the second defendant is not actuated by malice. Principles of natural justice was adhered to in taking a decision as against the second plaintiff. The Sangam had acted within the four corners of the bylaws giving them the authority to suspend a member for a period not exceeding five years. It is not a case of excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction in taking a decision by the Sangam. The Annual General Body which met on 26.10.2008 had also approved the decision taken by the Executive Committee.
24. The court is not supposed to subscribe its wisdom to the decision taken by the Sangam to discipline a member. A member of an association has voluntarily accepted its rules and regulations. When a decision is taken by the Executive Committee and approved by the General Body, a member is supposed to honour the decision. The court cannot go to the aid of the member to dishonour a decision taken by the Sangam in its Executive Meeting and later on approved in its Annual General Body Meeting.
25. The first plaintiff has established before the court that the notice said to have been issued as on 14.6.2008 was received by him only on 25.6.2008, but, beforeever he received the said notice, an order of suspension was issued to the first plaintiff by the proceedings of the Sangam dated 24.6.2008. No contra material was produced by the defendants to establish that the show cause notice dated 14.6.2008 was served on the first plaintiff prior to the order of suspension in order to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to explain his stand with respect to the grave allegations made against him.
26. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants also would fairly admit that the records would clinchingly show that the order of suspension was issued to the first plaintiff beforeever he received the show cause notice. Therefore, the decision to suspend the first plaintiff and subsequent removal from the primary membership taken first by the Executive Committee and later on approved by the General Body does not stand the scrutiny of the court. Therefore, a fresh show cause notice will have to be issued to the first plaintiff to call for explanation beforeever taking a decision on the show cause notice by the Sangam.
27. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that even before the election was conducted, the result was communicated to the Registrar of Societies by the first defendant. About 405 fresh members were not associated in the election process conducted by the second defendant. Clear notice of 21 days was also not given as per the bylaws of the Sangam. Therefore, he would submit that the election of the office bearers viz., defendants 2 to 25 is not at all sustainable in the eye of law.
28. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants would submit that the new membership is the subject matter of the suit filed before the City Civil Court, Chennai. The office bearers were elected unopposed in the disputed Annual General Body Meeting which was convened after giving 21 days clear notice to the members as contemplated in the bylaws of the first defendant. Therefore, he would submit that the plaintiffs cannot question the election that was held for the first defendant.
29. As per Rule 9-b of the Rules and Regulations of the first defendant, notice of the meeting of General Body shall be sent to all the members of the General Body atleast 21 days prior to the date of meeting. The notice shall be sent by one or more of the following modes viz., (1) By local delivery (2) By post (3) By circulating among the members (4) By publication through press.
Notice shall also be affixed in the notice board of the Sangam. The defendants have produced a copy of the publication in one issue of Dina Thanthi dated 4.2.2008. Of course, the defendants have set up a plea that notices were sent to all the members of the Sangam by courier and also by registered post, but, there is no evidence to establish that notices were sent either by courier or registered post.
30. The documents produced by the defendants would establish that in the Executive committee Meeting that was held on 2.10.2008 a decision was taken unanimously to hold the Annual General Body Meeting on 26.10.2008. On 4.10.2008 itself, the notice was published in Dina Thanthi. Therefore, it is found that only after giving clear 21 days notice to the members of the Sangam, the election was organised.
31. The defendants have come out with a case that defendants 2 to 25 were elected unopposedly. Therefore, there was no necessity to organise an election and the communication was sent a few days in advance to the Registrar of Societies also. There is nothing wrong in such communication sent by the first defendant to the Registrar of Societies about the election of the office bearers unopposed in advance.
32. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, disciplinary action has been initiated by the General Secretary K.Santhanam for having entertained the application from as many as 405 members without the sanction of the Executive Committee as per the bylaws. The bylaws of the Sangam specifically states that the members could be admitted only by the Executive committee of the Sangam. Nothing was produced to show that the decision to admit the new members numbering 405 was taken by the erstwhile General Secretary K.Santhanam after obtaining sanction from the Executive Committee. Further, the dispute with respect to the new members allegedly inducted is sub judice. Therefore, there was no necessity for the first defendant Sangam to associate the new members numbering 405 whose membership is in serious dispute in the civil suit laid down before the City Civil Court.
33. The defendants have demonstrated that defendants 2 to 25 were duly elected unopposed to the first defendant Sangam. Therefore, defendants 2 to 25 cannot be restrained from functioning as office bearers. The question of preparation of a new electorate through an officer of this court and conducting fresh election does not arise for consideration. As defendants 2 to 25 are the unopposedly elected members of the first defendant Sangam, no appointment of an administrator is warranted. The first plaintiff has established a prima facie case that order of suspension and the subsequent removal from the primary membership by the first defendant Sangam is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the fact that such order was passed even prior to the service of the show cause notice on the first plaintiff. If the order of suspension and the subsequent removal from the primary membership is sustained, much hardship will be caused to the first plaintiff.
34. O.A.Nos.1329 to 1331 and Application No.5883 of 2008:- All these applications stand dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
35. O.A.No.1332 of 2008:- The application stands dismissed as regards the prayer for interim injunction sought for by the second plaintiff, but, there shall be an order of injunction restraining the first defendant from giving effect to the order of suspension and removal as against the first plaintiff. The application is ordered accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
36. Application No.163 of 2009:- The interim order of injunction restraining the first defendant from giving effect to the order of suspension and removal as against the second plaintiff alone stands vacated. The application is ordered accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
ssk