This led to Court proceeding and the Delhi High Court restrained the requisitionists from holding their meeting at New Delhi and appointed a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court as an observer for the meeting to be held at Madras.
An application for injunction in support of Shri Shukla having been rejected by the trial Judge an appeal had been taken before the High Court where a learned Single Judge made a status quo order.
In the companyvened meeting of 15th of June, minutes of the proceedings whereof have been seriously disputed Shri Shukla claimed to have been elected.
In May, 1990, the Executive Council overruled the requisition as invalid and President Adityan called a meeting of the General assembly at Madras for 15th of June, 1990.
852.853 of 1991 arising SLPs 1599 and 1787/91 .
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.1990 of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.A. No.
With this started a period of companyfrontation between the two groups in the Association.
Kapil Sibal, H.N. Salve, J.B. Dadachanji, Mrs A.K. Verma and K. Mehta for the Appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
K. Venugopal, P. Chidambaram, S.S. Ray and P.P. Tripathi for the Respondents.
848 of 1991 etc etc.
This order is challenged in the appeal by Shri Murguan and Shri V.C. Shukla by two different appeals being Civil Appeals Nos.
The IOA was reconstituted with effect from 28th of October, 1984, with appellant Shri V.C. Shukla as the President.
For the same day the other group summoned a meeting of the general assembly at New Delhi.
The warring factions lost sight of the laudable goals of the IOA and the purpose for which the Association had been set up and put their entire attention on winning companytrol over the affairs of the IOA in their grip through litigation.
A Single Judge of the Madras High Court having decided in favour of Shri Adityan, the matter ultimately came before a Full Bench which by its order dated 3rd of January, 1991, remitted the matter to the learned Single Judge and appointed Justice Natarajan, a retired Judge of this Court, to discharge the functions of the President of the IOA as an interim measure.
K. Murugan, appellant in C.A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, CJ.
In November, 1988, Shri B.S. Adityan, one of the vice President of the 1984 Executive Council was elected as President for a term of four years.
Gradually, such participation became more systematic and broad based.
Indian participation in the Olympic games dates back to 1900 when a single representative had joined the Olympics at Paris.
227 of 1990.
848 of 1991 arising out of SLP 1064/91 was one of the 6 Joint Secretaries.
On 16th of May, 1990, there was a requisition of 17 Members for a special general meeting for companysidering the move of a numberconfidence motion against Shri Adityan and his Executive Council.
A little before the meeting of the 15th of June at Madras, further proceedings were taken in Court which have been labelled as companylusive and manipulations for obtaining an order for the manner of voting.
While the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports of the Union Government looks after development of sports within the companyntry, the management of the Olympic participation has been entrusted to a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 21 of 1860 known by the name Indian Olympic Association for short IOA The Memorandum of Association of this society indicates that the principal objects of the society, inter alia, are to develop and promote the Olympic movement and amateur sport, 2 to promote and encourage the physical, moral and cultural education of the youth of the nation for the development of character, good heath and good citizenship, 3 to enforce all rules and regulations of the International Olympic Committee hereinafter referred to as IOC and the IOA 4 to be the official organisation in companyplete and sole charge of all Olympic matters in the companyntry, 5 to educate the public of the companyntry as to the value of amateurism in sports 6 to maintain the highest ideals of amateurism and to promote interest therein, particularly in companynection with the Olympic games and other games under the patronage of the IOC as well as the IOA, 7 to have full and companyplete jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the participation of India in the Olympic games and other games under the patronage of the IOC as well as the IOA, 8 to assist in companyperation with National Sports Federations Associations the selection, training and companyching of the teams that will represent Indian in the Asian, Commonwealth, Olympic and other international companypetitions and tournaments, under the patronage of the teams in the said companypetitions and tournaments after selection, 9 to undertake with the assistance of National Sports Federations Associations the financing, management, transportation, maintenance and welfare of teams from India taking part in the Olympic games and other games under the patronage of the IOC as well as the IOA and 10 to timulate the interest of the people of the companyntry in the promotion of sports and games in the Olympic programme, and to that end the formation of State Olympic Association for the development of sports and games within a State and National Sports Federations for games and sports in the Olympic programme.
Not companytent with the litigation in the Delhi and Madras High Courts, the Fencing Association of India filed a civil suit at Jabalpur asking for declaration that Shri Shukla had been duly elected as President.
