Maitri Cultural Association vs P.G. Sadasivan and Others

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This application has been moved for grant of interim injunction, restraining the respondents, their men, agents,

servants and representatives from functioning as office bearers of the petitioner association viz., Maitri Cultural Association or from conducting any

functions, meetings, elections or other activity in any manner whatsoever in the name of petitioner association and interfering with the affairs of the

petitioner association. The affidavit filed in support of this application reads as under:-

1) I, K.K. Sasidharan, son of Mr. V.A. Kesava Pillai, aged 62 years, residing at New No. 11, Krishnamurthy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai

600 033 do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows:-

2) I am the General Secretary of Maitri Cultural Association which is a Registered Body registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration

Act, 1976. The registration number is 221/1988. The objects of our Association are as follows:-

a) To create opportunities for the Malayalee residents of Virugambakkam, Koyambedu and adjoining localities to get acquainted with each other

and to develop the spirit of co-operation and understanding among them.

b) To organize artistic, cultural and entertainment programmes with a view to develop appreciation of the arts and culture of Kerala and their

tradition.

c) To celebrate the National Festivals of Kerala in a fitting manner.

d) To organize education in Malayalam language and also the arts and crafts of Kerala.

e) To extend support to the members and their families who are exposed to hardship in fields of education, employment, industry etc.

f) To aid and advise members and their families in matrimonial matters.

g) To provide succor to local residents in times of natural calamities and like dangers.

3) I submit that our Association was registered in the year 1988. There are 475 members in the Association. One Mr. S. Venugopal was

previously functioning as General Secretary of the Association and he was acting against the welfare of the Association for the past nearly two

years and he was not managing the Association properly. Mr. N. Muralidharan Nambiar who was the President of the Association requested Mr.

S. Venugopal to produce the minutes book, statement of accounts and the day-to-day report. He did not submit any of this documents and

therefore the president called upon him to submit all the records on or before 14.08.2012. Without furnishing the particulars and the documents the

said Mr. S. Venugopal, misusing his position as General Secretary, called for an informal meeting without any intimation to the President, two Vice

Presidents, Treasurer and 12 executive committee members passed a resolution calling for an election on 9.9.2012. As a matter of fact, none of

the committee members were aware of such a meeting till 27.08.2012. Therefore, the President of the Association Mr. N. Muralidharan Nambiar

called upon him to submit his explanation on 29.08.2012. However, he did not appear and did not give any explanation or did not cancel the

proposed election and the General Body Meeting. Therefore, the president Mr. N. Muralidharan filed O.S. No. 5592 of 2012 praying for

permanent injunction restraining Mr. S. Venugopal or his men or agents or servants or any persons acting under him from conducting the election

on 9.9.2012 or any other subsequent day and for permanent injunction restraining them from conducting any General Body Meeting either on

9.9.2012 or any other subsequent day. He also filed interlocutory application seeking injunction restraining Mr. S. Venugopal or his men or agents

or servants or any persons acting under him from conducting any election and the same was granted on 4.9.2012 by the Hon''ble XVII Assistant

Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No. 13258/2012.

4) I submit that the term of the previous Managing Committee of the Petitioner Association expired on 30.09.2012 and since the former General

Secretary was functioning against the interest of the members of the Association about 35 members of the Association submitted a request in

writing requesting the President, that is, Mr. N. Muralidharan to call a General Body Meeting as per the provisions of the Association''s

regulations. Accordingly, a General Body Meeting was called by him on 14.10.2012 for which notice was published in Malayalam on the Notice

Board of the Association and it was also published in the Tamil Daily ''Theekathir'' which is a recognised newspaper. Since Mr. S. Venugopal was

planning to create a law and order problem a meeting was conducted at the League Club. About 120 members participated in the meeting and the

members expressed their displeasure over the functioning of the General Secretary and unanimously elected an ad-hoc committee to administer the

association. Mr. N. Muralidharan Nambiar was elected as President, I was elected as the General Secretary, Mr. P. Surendran was elected as

Treasurer. Thus, a new ad-hoc committee was formed and the ad-hoc committee has been functioning since then and managing the affairs of the

society.

5) I submit that Mr. S. Venugopal filed O.S. No. 6525 of 2012 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai claiming to be

the General Secretary of Maitri Cultural Association and praying for a declaration to declare the Annual General Body Meeting conducted on

14.10.2012 at the League Club, Chennai and the subsequent proceedings of the said meeting as null and avoid and not binding on the association

and its members and for a permanent injunction restraining Mr. N. Muralidharan, the President of the association, his men or agents or servants

from interfering with the day-to-day activities of the association. He also prayed for interim orders of injunction. However, no interim orders were

granted and on the other hand, his plaint was rejected and the suit was dismissed by order dated 6.1.2013.

6) I submit on the instigation of the said Mr. S. Venugopal, one Mr. M.C. Francis who was sponsored by Mr. S. Venugopal for membership of

the Association in the year 2009 filed O.S. No. 77 of 2013 praying for the relief of declaration declaring the ad-hoc committee constituted on

14.10.2012 at the League Club as null and void and non-est in law and for a mandatory injunction directing Maitri Cultural Association to conduct

an election as per the bye-laws of the association in the presence of a monitoring committee to be appointed by the Court. He also fled three

interlocutory applications. One of the interlocutory applications was to grant an injunction, restraining the office bearers of the ad-hoc committee

elected in the General Body Meeting held on 14.12.2012 from conducting the New Year and Christmas Celebrations on 06.01.2013. However,

the Interlocutory Application, namely, I.A. No. 151 of 2013 in O.S. No. 77 of 2013 was dismissed on 05.01.2013 by the Hon''ble XVII

Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the ad-hoc committee conducted the said celebrations on 06.01.2013.

7) While so, the said Mr. S. Venugopal issued a notice dated 27.02.2013 under the caption ''General Meeting'' requesting the persons to whom

the said notice was sent stating that a General Meeting was scheduled at Mar Thoma School, Sri Ayyappa Nagar, Chennai-600 092 on

24.2.2013 at 4.00 p.m., to appraise the members on the current status of the association and also to hear their views. He issued the said letter

claiming to be the General Secretary of the Association. However, the said meeting was not conducted at Mar Thoma School. On the other hand,

he conducted a meeting on 24.02.2013 at Plot No. 36/84, Third Main Road, Sri Ayyappa Nagar, Chennai-600 092 and passed a resolution

stating that the executive committee was declared dissolved and a new committee was elected comprising of one President, two Vice Presidents,

one General Secretary, two Secretaries, one Treasurer, one Joint Treasurer and 20 executive members. In the same meeting, a resolution was also

passed cancelling the primary membership of Sri K.K. Sasidharan (General Secretary), Sri N. Muralidharan (President), Sri S. Sudakaran, Sri

P.K. Sudheesh Kumar and Sri Surendran from the Association for anti-organisational activities. Thereafter, they forcibly entered the association

building with the help of local rowdy elements and assaulted the General Secretary Mr. K.K. Sasidharan (myself) who fainted and fell down on the

spot. A complaint was lodged with Virugambakkam Police Station immediately. The respondents claim themselves to be the President, Secretary,

Treasurer, Vice-Presidents, Joint Treasurer et. of the Association.

8) Regulation No. 15 of the Regulations of Maitri Cultural Association states as follows:-

All disputes in respect of matters concerning the affairs of the society shall be settled by arbitration as provided for in the Indian Arbitration Act,

1940 and none shall be entitled to proceed in a court of law in respect of such disputes.

Therefore, in accordance with the said regulation, a dispute is proposed to be raised for arbitration shortly. However, since the respondents are

interfering with the day-to-day functioning of the association it is just and necessary that an interim order is passed u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act.

Therefore, I am filing the present petition u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act.

I submit that the Maitri Cultural Association is governed by the registered regulations and rules. The rules and regulations provide for the manner

in which the General Body Meeting is to be conducted and the manner in which the office bearers have to be elected. However, without following

any of the provisions of the rules and regulations of the association and without publishing any notice as prescribed in the rules and regulations, the

respondents conducted a meeting at some place outside the association building and passed a resolution stating that a new committee of office

bearers has been elected. No election was held. Even though the rules and regulations of the association provide for the manner in which the

election has to be conducted (Regulation -12), the said procedure was not at all followed. Regulation -13 provides for a manner in which the

General Body Meeting has to be conducted. None of the provisions have been followed. On the other hand, the respondents have unanimously

declared themselves as office bearers of the Association and they are interfering with the day-to-day functioning of the association with the help of

local rowdy elements. It is therefore just and necessary that the Association and its premises are protected and safe-guarded as an interim measure

pending resolution of the disputes proposed to be raised for arbitration shortly. The applicant Association is therefore invoking the jurisdiction of

this Hon''ble Court u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act to protect the Association and its premises.

In the circumstances I pray that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to grant an injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents,

servants and representatives from functioning as office bearers of the Petitioner Association, namely, Maitri Cultural Association or from

conducting any functions, meetings, elections or other activity in any manner whatsoever in the name of the Petitioner Association and interfering

with the affairs of the Petitioner Association in any manner whatsoever and render justice.

The reading of the affidavit itself shows, that the dispute between parties is already pending before the Civil Court, as the management

committee of the Association itself was constituted in view of the injunction granted by the Civil Court against holding of election. Another suit is

pending in which no interim injunction has been granted.

In view of the fact, that parties have already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the dispute to be raised before the arbitral Tribunal

itself will not be competent.

In any case, neither in application, nor at the time of hearing, the applicant was able to show, what was the dispute between the parties, which

was to be referred to the arbitration, which could entitle the petitioner to invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The relief sought is of injunction against illegal activities, which cannot be the subject matter of arbitration. As already noticed above, in absence

of disclosure of the disputed, referable to the arbitration proceedings, and when the civil Court is already seized of the matter, the application u/s 9

in anticipation of initiation of arbitration proceedings is not competent. There is no prima facie case in favour of the applicant to seek injunction.

Consequently, finding this application being totally misconceived, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.