THIRU K. PALANISWAMY versus M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 1118 · Decided: 23-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI, HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY
v.
M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 23, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Injunction – Prayer for temporary injunction – Political Party
– Party Constitution – Dispute inter-se in the political party – The
topmost position in the party was earlier assigned to the General
Secretary but, after the demise of the then General Secretary on
05.12.2016, the party organisation went through various changes
and ultimately, a system of joint leadership, by Co-ordinator and
Joint Co-ordinator – However, when the proposition for amendments
of the byelaws, essentially to revert to the system of single leadership
at the apex level, was likely to come up in the meeting of the General
Council dated 23.06.2022, it led to the litigation – In the said meeting
(23.06.2022) resolution to propose one ‘TMH’ as a chairman was
proposed – It is alleged that the said ‘TMH’ announced next date of
General Council meeting as 11.07.2022 – Various civil suits were
filed – The Single Judge of the High Court took note of the various
interim applications and proceeded to decide the same by order
dated 17.08.2022 – It held, inter-alia, that the General Council
meeting dated 11.07.2022 was not convened by the person competent
to convene the General Council meeting – The said meeting was
not convened providing 15 days advance notice – The status quo
ante as existing on 23.06.2022 was held to be maintained and it
was directed that there would be no Executive Council meeting or
General Council meeting without the joint consent of the Co-
ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator – However, the said order was set
aside by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned
order dated 17.08.2022 – On appeal, held: The Division Bench
referred to the principles governing the grant or refusal of temporary
injunction and pointed out that the directions given by the Single
Judge for convening the meeting only with the joint consent of Co-
ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator was leading to a situation where
the party as a whole would undergo irreparable hardship because
there was no possibility of the appellant and the respondent No. 1-
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 1118
1118
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
OPS and EPS – acting jointly to convene the meeting – The Division
Bench pointed out that the directions of the Single Judge would
only further the “functional deadlock” already existing in the party
– The logic and reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court
stand accord with the law and also facts of the present case – So
far as convening of the meeting dated 23.06.2022 is concerned,
the same had never been in doubt or in any dispute – The said
meeting was indeed convened by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-
ordinator jointly – They had been working in tandem until that stage
– However, they seem to have fallen apart immediately thereafter,
particularly when a proposition for amendment of the byelaws and
reverting to the system of single leadership was in the offing – If
majority of members gave a requisition on 23.06.2022 for convening
the General Council meeting and the Presidium Chairman
announced the date of this requisitioned meeting as 11.07.2022, in
the given set of facts and circumstances, such announcement, at
least at the present stage, cannot be dubbed as wholly redundant –
Single Judge while passing the order dated 17.08.2022 had
committed a serious error in convening of the meeting dated
11.07.2022 as an act unauthorised – Another alleged infirmity as
to 15 days’ notice, the Division Bench appears to have rightly
analysed the frame of the said Rule 19(vii), where the requirement
of 15 days’ notice is referable to the regular meeting and not as
such to a requisitioned or special meeting – Thus, the Single Judge
did not examine the questions in the correct perspective.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Division Bench also referred to the
principles governing the grant or refusal of temporary injunction
and pointed out that the directions given by the learned Single
Judge for convening the meeting only with the joint consent of
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator was leading to a situation
where the party as a whole would undergo irreparable hardship
because there was no possibility of the appellant and the
respondent No.1 – OPS and EPS – acting jointly to convene the
meeting. The Division Bench pointed out that the directions of
the learned Sing

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.