The second Respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Bombay High Court did number have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition on the ground that Clause 21 1 The Act of 1860 of the Constitution and Bye Laws companyferred exclusive jurisdiction on companyrts at Chennai in disputes involving the second Respondent and any other party to the Constitution and Bye Laws, including the Appellant.
4 The Appellant had filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution impleading, inter alia the second Respondent.
On 25 December 2016, the Central Council of the second Respondent passed a resolution to disaffiliate the Appellant.
The Appellant is a society registered under the Act of 1860 and was an affiliated member of the second Respondent since 1978.
The Bombay High Court held that Clause 21 ousted the jurisdiction of all other companyrts except the companyrts at Chennai.
After the institution of the writ proceedings, the third Respondent has been affiliated by the second Respondent in place of the Appellant.
