SUNDAR V. SRINIVASAN Vs. T. RAMASATYANARAYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the appeal in O.S.A. No. 346 of 2016 and W.P.No. 4058 of 2017 is filed by one and the same person and the issues involved in the Original Side Appeal as well as the Writ Petition are also same, we are inclined dispose of both the appeal and writ petition by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellant in O.S.A. No. 246 of 2016 is a third party to the suit, with the leave of this Court, he has filed this appeal, challenging the decree and judgment of a single Judge of this Court in C.S.No. 454 of 2016. The facts in brevity leading to file this appeal and writ petition are as follows:- 2. (a) The 2nd respondent in this appeal is the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce, formed in the year 1939. The 2nd respondent, South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce was originally governed by the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act XXI of 1860), thereafter under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1975"). 2. (b) The main object of the Society is to encourage and develop the film industry in all its branches in the whole of South India consisting of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnakata, Kerala and the Union Territory of Pondicherry, and, as far as possible, to work in conjunction with other similar Associations. Any person who is connected with the film trade or industry, was eligible to apply for admission as a member of the chamber. As per the bye-laws and rules, the members are classified under six (6) groups viz., (1) Studio (2) Producers (3) Distributors (4) Exhibitors (5) Affiliated associations and (6) Associates. Rules 8(i), 34, 35 and 36 deals with the committee members, Annual General Meeting and Election and the right to exercise franchise. 2. (c) The appellant/writ petitioner is a member of the Society. He filed a suit in O.S.No. 4187 of 2015 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, for a permanent injunction restraining the election officer/2nd defendant from accepting the authorization letter to vote in the election to be conducted on 26.07.2015 and to direct the defendant to conduct election by permitting the members to vote in person. The grievance of the appellant in the above suit is that bye-laws and rules 8(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act, 1975. Therefore, the main grievance of the appellant is that no proxy or authorized representative of the members are entitled to vote in the election. 2. (d) In the above suit, ex-parte interim injunction was granted, against which Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No. 3038 of 2015 was filed before this Court on 24.07.2015 and the ex-parte injunction granted by the trial court is suspended. In the meanwhile, one Mr. T. Ramasathiyanarayana (1st respondent) had filed a Civil Suit in C.S.No. 454 of 2016 before this Court for a mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to conduct election to the post of office bearers and Executive Committee members in the defendant society every year, by strictly following the procedure laid down under the Rules of the defendant society, including the procedure of voting through authorized representatives as provided in Rule 8. 2. (e) The learned single judge has passed a common order in C.R.P.No. 3038 of 2015, C.S.No. 454 of 2016 and Appln.No. 3447 of 2016. As the issue involved in the suit is only with regard to the interpretation of the Section 15(3) of the Act, 1975, the learned single judge disposed of C.R.P.No. 3038 of 2015 and also held that the suit filed in O.S.No. 4187 of 2015 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, has become infructous and, ultimately, the same was called for from the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, and decreed the suit in C.S.No. 454 of 2016 by appointing the Honourable Mr. Justice D. Hariparanthaman as the supervisor/observer to supervise and oversee the election in conformity with Rule 8(1) of the Society. The learned Single Judge has also held that there is no inconsistency between Rule 8(1) and Section 15(3) of the Act 1975.

(3.) Aggrieved with the judgment of the learned single judge, though the appellant was a party in C.S.No. 454 of 2016, with the leave of this Court, filed the present appeal in O.S.A.No. 246 of 2016. 3. a. This Court on 12.12.2016, with the consent of the appellant counsel and the counsel for the 2nd respondent, passed the following:-