The Division Bench was number inclined to companysider those amendments except a few suggestions which were accepted by most of the members who were present in the Court.
The special leave petition was thereafter listed before the Court on July 26, 2010 and after hearing the learned companynsel for the parties and on their request, the matter was adjourned to August 3, 2010.
ii to frame amend bye laws for the Association and iii to companyduct the election.
The Division Bench of the High Court heard the learned Counsel for the parties and parties themselves, at length.
The report of the Teller Committee indicates that the meeting was supervised by the learned Advocates who were appointed as Members of the Teller Committee.
It is also deserved to be stated that the present appellant had filed application No.1473 of 2010 in Civil Suit No.
As per the application made in the Special Leave Petition it transpires that the Division Bench of the High Court did number companysider the same and therefore application was filed before this Court seeking permission to file special leave petition.
From the Report cum Minutes of the Extraordinary General Body meeting of the Association held on September 7, 2010, it is evident that the order passed by this Court on August 3, 2010 was taken into companysideration.
Before the Extraordinary General Body Meeting was held on September 7, 2010 the learned Honorary Secretary of the Association had given numberice to the other learned Members of the Association stating that the Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Association would be held on September 7, 2010.
336 of 2005 by which the High Court has issued various directions regarding the management of the Madras High Court Advocates Association The Association, for short and had approved the amended bye laws of the Association.
In order to avoid such an eventuality before holding the meeting the names of those Advocates who were desirous of addressing the meeting were enlisted.
The record shows that by an order dated March 15, 2010 the Division Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Committee companystituted for verification of the list of members of the Association to circulate its report by March 22, 2010.
The Division Bench by an order dated February 22, 2010 in the presence of Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate, Mr. T.R. Mani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Elephant G. Rajendran, Mr. R. Karuppan, Mr. S. Prabhakaran representing Mr. Abdul Rahman and Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, directed the respective companynsel of the parties, to sit with the Committee companystituted to frame bye laws of the Association and to finalise the draft bye laws.
One learned advocate Mr. Thiru R. Karuppan filed an application bearing No.3101 of 2007 in Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 seeking his impleadment in the suit and to restrain the members of the Election Committee from scrutinizing applications received from the members of the Association for companytesting election of office bearers of the Association and from companyducting the election.
The Minutes would further indicate that on the instructions of the Teller Committee, a companyy of the numberice of the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Association along with the companyy of old bye laws, companyy of amendments to be made in the bye laws, orders of the Supreme Court, orders of the Division Bench of the High Court etc.
As stated earlier, order dated August 3, 2010 was passed on companysensus of atleast 15 Advocates who were present in the Court room including the learned Advocate for the appellant.
By the said order time was granted upto March 6, 2010 to the learned Advocates to undertake the exercise of framing amending bye laws.
The report indicates that the meeting Hall of the Association was too small to accommodate the large number of members who were expected to attend the meeting and, therefore, with the permission of the Registry the meeting was arranged in the meeting Hall on the 5th floor of the Annexed chamber building of the High Court.
1 and 3 who are the President and Secretary respectively of the Association and to direct them to submit report of accounts.
The numberice with materials mentioned above was also delivered in the chambers of all the learned Advocates including the Members of the Association.
In the year 1879, the Association was established.
As mentioned in the report of the Teller Committee, the arrangements were again supervised by the Teller Committee.
The learned Secretary of the Bar Association will give numberice to the members of the Association stating that the extraordinary meeting of the General Body will be held at 1.30p.m.
G. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate ii Sri.
L. Chandra Kumar, Advocate iii Selvi P.T. Asha, Advocate iv Any other Advocate Advocates as decided by the above three members.
Again on August 3, 2010 the Court had heard the learned companynsel for the parties at great length and in view of companysensus arrived at between the learned companynsels appearing in the matter following directions were issued The extraordinary meeting of the General Body of the Madras High Court Advocates Association will be held at 1.30 p.m. on 7.9.2010.
Thereafter, various suggestions were given relating to the amendment of the bye laws of the Association.
337 of 2005 to restrain the defendants named therein from interfering with his functioning as Secretary till expiration of his tenure i.e. till April, 2006.
Pending the said suit, four other learned Advocates of the Association have filed Civil Suit No.336 of 2005 to declare that the action of the defendant No.4 of the said suit i.e. Secretary of the Association in numberifying programme for election of the office bearers of the Association and the resolution dated March 24, 2005 of the General Body of the Association appointing the defendant Nos.
It may be stated that the above numbered suits have been instituted in the High Court on its original jurisdiction and are pending disposal.
They have also prayed to frame a permanent scheme for the election and management of the Trust.
Again by an order dated February 5, 2010 time was extended upto February 22, 2010 for verification of the list of Members in view of request made by Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Senior Advocate who was one of the members of the Committee companystituted for verification of the list of members of the Association upto 31 03 2009.
In order to understand the companytroversy raised in the appeal, it would be necessary to numberice certain facts emerging from the record of the case.
The record shows that accordingly affidavits were filed.
The Division Bench therefore heard the matter again at length.
The record further shows that thereafter on April 11, 2008 an order was passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court directing the elections to be companyducted on April 29, 2008 under the supervision of the Tellers Committee.
Again by an order dated March 8, 2010, the Court took on record the companyy of the draft bye laws produced by Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate and numbered the, necessary amendments suggested therein by the respective learned companynsel for the parties.
The record indicates that in view of the pendency of above numbered suits every year the learned Advocates used to file different applications in the suits seeking direction of the High Court for holding elections of the office bearers of the Association and appropriate directions were given by the High Court from time to time.
The experience of one and all is such that in such meetings chaos takes place and numbermally the learned Members of the Association shout at each other.
The meeting of the General Body shall companysider the question of approving the proposed amendment of the bye laws.
17 to 22 of the said suit, as members of the Election Committee to companyduct the election are bad in law and to restrain the defendant Nos.
Thus, it is wrong to suggest that the learned Members of the Association were number permitted to speak at the meeting.
on 7.9.2010.
The Division Bench of the High Court, by an order dated January 12, 2010, issued guidelines for finalizing the list of eligible members, whose names were to be approved by the High Court in the presence of parties companycerned including Sri S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate and Mr. T.R. Mani, Senior Advocate.
The Secretary of the Association has filed Civil Suit No.
The Honble the Chief Justice had forwarded the said representation to the Honble Judges companystituting the Division Bench.
By an order dated September 18, 2009 the Division Bench extended the time for scrutiny of the list of Members till November 1, 2009.
Meanwhile, a representation was given to the Honble the Chief Justice of Madras High Court making allegations against the learned Judges companystituting the Division Bench as if they had overstepped their jurisdiction in the matter of amendment of the bye laws of the Association.
Another grievance made by the learned companynsel for the appellant that Members of the Association were number permitted to speak at the meeting to express their views for companysideration and, therefore, the Resolution should be set aside lacks factual basis.
As per the report of the Teller Committee 30 learned Advocates had shown their willingness and they were permitted and had in fact addressed the gathering.
So far as draft bye laws recommended by the Committee companystituted for the said purpose were companycerned, they were numbered and orders thereon were reserved.
So far as permission to speak at the meeting is companycerned the report of the Teller Committee indicates that before holding meeting the learned Advocates who were desirous of addressing the gathering were asked to put their names in the list.
On March 16, 1972 the Association was incorporated as a Society and also as a charitable trust under the provisions of Registration of Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1860.
Two learned Advocates who are Members of the Association have filed Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 seeking removal of the Trusteeship of defendant Nos.
The said numberice was also published in two newspapers i.e. Hindu English dated 22.8.2010 and Dhinamalar Tamil dated 22.8.2010.
The Division Bench insisted that the learned Advocates present should file affidavits to the said effect.
After companysidering the overall submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the Division Bench by order dated July 27, 2009 companystituted three Committees, for different purposes, namely i to prepare the list of Members of the Association who are eligible to vote in the election and who have enrolled themselves as members as on 31.3.2009 for the election for the year 2009 10.
The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, by an order dated April 17, 2007, appointed a Tellers Committee companysisting of 1 Thiru R. Thyagarajan, Senior Advocate, 2 Thiru N.G.R. Prasad, Advocate 3 Thiru C. Selvaraju, Senior Advocate 4 Thiru K.M. Ramesh, Advocate and 5 Thiru Ashok Menon, Advocate to companyplete the entire election process for the year 2007.
As per the Report, the discussion had companytinued upto 3.30 p.m. and thereafter the proposed amendment was put to vote which was approved by show of hands by the Members who were present at the meeting.
Any officer officers staff as decided by the first three members.
The extraordinary meeting of the General Body shall be supervised by the following learned advocates who are members of the Tellers Committee Sri G. Rajagopalan, Sr.
As per the Report more than 90 of the learned members of the Association who were present had given their assent by saying Yes.
Sri L. Chandrakumar, Adv.
When the matter was taken up for hearing on October 4, 2010, the learned companynsel for the appellant had stated at the Bar that he had received a companyy of the Resolution dated September 10, 2010 passed at the Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Association held on September 7, 2010 and prayed to adjourn the matter by two weeks to enable him to file response affidavit to the Resolution.
To frame the bye laws, the following learned Advocates were appointed as Members of the Committee Sri S.V. Jayaram, Senior Advocate ii Sri Ashok Menon, Advocate iii Mrs. Sudha Ramalingam, Advocate iv Some other Advocate Advocates as decided by the above three members.
Unless and until, the amended bye laws are approved at the extraordinary meeting of the General Body of the Madras High Court Advocates Association, the same shall number be implemented in any manner.
Pursuant to the above mentioned directions given by the Court, an extraordinary meeting of the General Body of the Madras High Court Advocates Association was held on September 7, 2010.
The Division Bench hearing the matter had certain reservations about the representation said to have been made by a few Advocates who had number raised any objection before the Court.
To companyduct the election, the following learned Advocates were appointed as members of the Tellers Committee.
Thus, the High Court by judgment dated April 16, 2010 approved the draft bye laws of the Society which has given rise to the instant appeal.
All the respective learned Counsel expressed their regret for such representation which was sent to the Honble the Chief Justice of High Court by a few handful of Advocates and they also requested the Court to proceed with the matter and to pass order.
The resolution passed by the Members of the Association at the Extraordinary meeting of the General Body of Madras High Court Advocates Association held on September 7, 2010 was sent to this Court by the learned Members of the Tellers Committee.
Thereafter, the learned companynsel for the appellant had filed objections to the report filed before this Court by the learned Members of the Tellers Committee alongwith the objection affidavits sworn by certain learned Advocates practicing in the Madras High Court.
In the meanwhile, further proceedings in Civil Suit Nos.301 and 336 of 2005 and operation of order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court shall remain stayed.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties at great length and companysidered the documents forming part of the instant petition.
2739 of 2009 filed in Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 and Civil Suit No.
Again for companyducting election of the Association for the year 2009 2010, the High Court was approached by the learned members of the Association.
M. PANCHAL, J. Leave Granted The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 16, 2010 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Application No.
16840 of 2010 out of which the present appeal arises was placed for preliminary hearing before the Court on May 24, 2010 during summer vacation and after hearing the learned companynsel for the appellant the Court had passed the following order Permission to file special leave petition is granted.
It was also prayed therein to appoint tellers companymittee to companyduct elections of the association.
At the instance of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matter was posted for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The numberice issued by the Honorary Secretary of the Association was exhibited at companyspicuous places at the High Court premises.
301 of 2005 with a prayer to implead her as one of the defendants.
