U.P. Chess Association vs Tamil Nadu Chess Association & Ors.

C.A. NO.3610/2006, C.A. NO. 3612/2006

Both these appeals arise from orders passed in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2005. This suit is filed by Tamil Nadu State Chess Association against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 namely, M. Srinivasan, Honorary President, P.T. Ummer Koya, Honorary Secretary and Sowmen Majumdar, Honorary Treasurer. An ex parte interim order came to be passed in this Suit restraining the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from functioning as Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer of the Federation. That interim order is in force till date.

Accordingly, M/s. R. Basant and Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsels submit the said suit is collusive between plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1. We do not propose to adjudicate this issue at this stage in view of the order which we propose to pass.

The order of injunction referred to above was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court vide order dated 23.08.2005. The impugned order made by the High Court in the present case, dated 12.06.2006 arose out of order dated 16.12.2005 passed in the same suit, i.e., Civil Suit No. 52 of 2005.

By the impugned order dated 12.06.2006, in paragraph 10, the High Court came to the following findings :

"10.- Before parting with the case, we are constrained to render the following findings also to give effect to:

The second defendant is directed to handover the records of AICF forthwith to Mr. D.V. Sundar, the newly elected Secretary of AICF.

When the AICF was registered in the year 1958 under the Society Act at Chennai and there could be only one AICF in India to have communications with the FIDE, and some person unscrupulously registered AICF at Calicut in the year 1991 under the Society Act is not valid;

AICF registered at Chennai as per the Registration No. 125 of 1958 is valid as on date through the registration under Society Act was cancelled on 07.12.2005 due to some reasons and the same was set aside as per the order of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28.

Headquarters of AICF is at Chennai;

The defendants 2 and 3 are facing serious charges of misfeasance and malfeasance;

Siphoning AICF funds and enriched by themselves is their personal Act and so much so, they are injuncted from interfering with all the affairs of AICF. Any amount spent, out of AICF fund towards their litigation expenses, amount to illegal and they are bound to reimburse the same to AICF forthwith; and

The defendants 2 and 3 are directed to submit account for the withdrawal of AICF funds between 16.4.2005 to 05.05.2005, forthwith to AICF at Chennai."

This order has been in force since 12.06.2006. The suit has been languishing in the High Court without a decision. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we find it appropriate to direct that the afore-mentioned civil suit, thus, be disposed of within a period of one year from the date the parties produce a copy of this order before the High Court. The High Court is requested to disposed of the same, not later than one year from the said date.

Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Chess Association and U.P. Chess Association and learned counsel for appearing for All Kerala chess Association made a grievance that the associations represented by them have been wrongly dismembered by order of Justice Rajan, retired Judge of the Madras High Court. Even so, their application for being impleaded in the suit for objecting to such dismemberment has been dismissed.

We consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to permit such impleadment. Order accordingly. The other associations will be entitled to make an application for impleadment before the Madras High Court. We make it clear that the observations and the findings in the impugned order are tentative and made for the purpose of deciding the interim applications. All the said findings and observations shall be subject to the final decision in the suit where all questions/issues are left open. Till the decision of the suit, the parties shall maintain status quo. The parties shall be at liberty to apply for interim relief, including the issue of maintainability of the suit.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

C.A. Nos. 3611/2006 & C.A. No. 9245/2019 @ SLP© No. 13806/2006

Leave granted in SLP© No. 13806/2006

In view of the order passed in C.A. No. 3610 and 3612 of 2006, these appeals are also disposed of in the same terms and observations.