Since the said order was passed by the Appellate Court, the learned companynsel also submitted, that the elections alleged to have taken place are invalid, as they were number held in accordance with the companystitution rules of the Union.
The aforementioned suit was filed by the plaintiff, who is respondent number 1 herein, seeking a declaration that he is a duly appointed office bearer of the Union and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his functioning as a General Secretary of the Union.
The suit is still pending in the trial Court.
1 wanted to withdraw the writ petition the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
1 was removed from the post of General Secretary of the Union on 8th May, 1999.
He filed another suit C.S. No.
1, who was elected as Secretary in the biennial elections held on 5th November, 1997, was suspended by the Central Executive Council of the Union with effect from 30th November, 1998.
The Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and passed an order of interim injunction in the following terms Defendant respondent No.
179/99 arising out of the Title Suit No.
On the 14th September, 1999 respondent No.
The High Court declined to pass such order.
Thereafter, respondent No.
However, the Appellate Court by an order dated 16th September, 1999 granted interim injunction restraining the newly elected office bearers.
This appeal, filed by the defendant, is directed against the revisional order passed by the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No.
1, his men and agents by way of temporary injunction are restrained from intervening the day to day administration and other activities of the Central Executive Committee and also that of General Secretary including operation of bank account with State Bank of India, Garden Reach Branch in the name of said Union jointly with the proforma defendant No.
The defendant, who is appellant herein, challenged the said order in revision before the High Court.
Elucidating his companytention, Shri Mohta submitted, that in the meantime, three elections have been held and different sets of office bearers, excluding the respondent No.
The High Court, as numbered earlier, dismissed the revision petition by the order which is under challenge in the present proceeding.
A fresh election was held on 15th September, 1999 and new office bearers were elected.
The attempts made by respondent No.
In the meantime, on 17th August, 1999 the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the trial Court rejecting the prayed for interim injunction, was allowed by the Appellate Court.
The respondent was number elected as an office bearer in the said election.
The trial Court, on companysideration, rejected the prayer for temporary injunction.
Therein the learned Single Judge passed an order of stay.
These proceedings were filed by persons set up by the appellant herein this was a mala fide move against the respondents.
1, have been elected.
The main thrust of the submissions made by Shri V.A. Mohta, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant, is that the High Court was in error in number taking into companysideration certain subsequent events which have a material bearing on the issues involved in the case.
However, the suit was withdrawn on 11th September, 2000.
2264/99 in which the High Court declined to interfere with the order of temporary injunction passed on 17th August, 1999 by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.
In the said suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction.
When the Joint Secretary of the Union issued a numberice on the 12th August, 1999 for holding the proposed meeting on 15th September, 1999 the respondent filed a writ petition challenging the said numberice.
The newly elected office bearers have been recognized by the management of the South Eastern Railway Respondent No.
The High Court, by the order dated 12.10.1999, allowed the revision petition filed by the appellant and passed a companyditional order.
1 for getting interim relief against his suspension did number succeed.
The said order was vacated by the Division Bench on 10th September, 1999.
P. Mohapatra, J. Leave granted.
The litigation giving rise to the present appeal relates to affairs of the South Eastern Railway Mens Union hereinafter referred to as the Union with membership of 1,34,000 railway employees spread over six States companyering the South Eastern Railway Zone.
Though the appellant as well as respondent number 1 have ceased to be office bearers of the Union, the litigation initiated at a point of time when they were members of the Union still companytinues.
1 on the other hand companytended that the respondent neither filed any writ petition challenging the suspension order number did he file the suit seeking injunction against the newly elected office bearers.
105/98 on the file of the 6th Civil Judge Senior Division , Alipore, South Calcutta.
