SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Admk case for admk former ag vijayanarayanan former aags s r rajagopal and narmada sambath mam argued for ops guru krishnakumar former aag aravind pandian நீதிபதி கிருஷ்ணன் ராமசாமி, வழக்கின் தீர்ப்பை திங்கள் கிழமை 9 மணிக்கு தள்ளிவைத்துள்ளார்.

by ·

I

நீதிமன்றம் எழுப்பிய கேள்விகளுக்கு பதிலளித்த இணை ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர் எடப்பாடி பழனிச்சாமி தரப்பு மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர்கள், கடந்த ஆண்டு டிசம்பரில் நடந்த செயற்குழு கூட்டத்தில் ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர், இணை ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளரை கட்சியின் அடிப்படை தொண்டர்கள் தேர்ந்தெடுப்பர் என கட்சி விதிகளில் திருத்தம் செய்ததாகவும், அதற்கு ஜூன் 23ம் தேதி பொதுக்குழுவில் ஒப்புதல் பெறாததால், அந்த திருத்தத்தின் அடிப்படையில் நடந்த தேர்தல் செல்லாது என்பதால், இரு பதவிகளும் காலியாகி விட்டன என தேர்தல் ஆணையத்துக்கும் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டு விட்டது என்றனர்.

மேலும், முந்தைய பொதுக்குழுவில் எந்த
நிகழ்ச்சி நிரலும் வழங்கப்படுவதில்லை எனவும், கட்சியின் இரு பதவிகளும் காலியாகி விட்டதால், நிர்வாகத்தில் எந்த வெற்றிடமும் ஏற்படாது எனவும், நிர்வாகத்தை கவனிக்க தலைமைக் கழக நிர்வாகிகள் உள்ளனர் என விளக்கமளித்தனர்.

ஜெயலலிதா மறைவுக்கு பின் தற்காலிக பொதுச்செயலாளராக நியமிக்கப்பட்ட சசிகலா சிறை சென்ற பின், 2017 செப்டம்பர் 12ல் நடந்த பொதுக்குழுவுக்கான நோட்டீஸ் தலைமைக்கழக நிர்வாகிகளால் தான் அனுப்பப்பட்டது… அதே போல தற்போதும் தலைமைக் கழக நிர்வாகிகளால் நோட்டீஸ் அனுப்பப்பட்டுள்ளது எனவும் விளக்கமளித்தனர்.

அதேபோல, வழக்கமான பொதுக்குழு கூட்டத்தை கூட்டுவதாக இருந்தால் தான் 15 நாட்களுக்கு முன் நோட்டீஸ் அனுப்ப வேண்டும் எனவும், ஐந்தில் ஒரு பங்கு பொதுக் குழு உறுப்பினர்கள், பொதுக்குழுவை கூட்ட வேண்டும் என கோரிக்கை வைத்தால் 30 நாட்களுக்குள் கூட்டத்தை கூட்ட வேண்டும் எனவும் 15 நாள் நோட்டீஸ் அவசியமில்லை எனவும் பதிலளித்தனர்.

ஜூன் 23ல் நடந்த பொதுக் குழு கூட்டத்தில் தான் ஜூலை 11 கூட்டம் குறித்த அறிவிப்பு வெளியிடப்பட்டது என்பதால், கடைசி நேரத்தில் நோட்டீஸ் அனுப்பியதாக கூற முடியாது எனவும் தெரிவித்தனர்.

அரசியல் கட்சி உள் விவகாரங்களில் நீதிமன்றம் தலையிட முடியாது எனவும், 2,665 உறுப்பினர்களில் 2,190 உறுப்பினர்கள் ஜூலை 11 கூட்டத்துக்கு ஒப்புதல் அளித்து கையெழுத்திட்டுள்ளனர் எனவும்
2432 பொதுக்குழு உறுப்பினர்கள், ஒற்றைத் தலைமை குறித்து விவாதித்து பொதுக்குழுவில் முடிவெடுக்க விருப்பம் தெரிவித்துள்ளதாகவும் குறிப்பிட்டனர்.

உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவின்படி பொதுக்குழுவுக்கு எந்த தடையும் இல்லை… ஜனநாயகம் நிலைக்க வேண்டும்… இந்தியாவிலேயே சில கட்சிகளில் தான் உள்கட்சி ஜனநாயகம் உள்ளது… கட்சி பொதுக்குழு கூட்டத்துக்கு எதிராக வழக்கு தொடர கட்சியின் ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளரே வழக்கு தொடர நீதிமன்றத்தில் முன் கூட்டியே அனுமதி பெற்றிருக்க வேண்டும்… முன் அனுமதி இல்லாமல் ஓ.பி.எஸ் தாக்கல் செய்த இந்த மனு விசாரணைக்கே உகந்தது அல்ல எனவும் வாதிடப்பட்டது.

பன்னீர்செல்வம் மற்றும் வைரமுத்து தரப்பில் ஆஜரான மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர்கள், 2021 டிசம்பர் செயற்குழு தீர்மானத்தின்படி ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர், இணை ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர்கள் தேர்தலில் வெற்றி பெற்றனர்… அது தேர்தல் ஆணையத்துக்கும் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டது… பொதுக்குழு ஒப்புதல் வழங்காததால் இரு பதவிகளும் காலியாகி விட்டதாக முன் வைத்த வாதம் தவறு… ஒட்டு மொத்தமாக உள்கட்சி தேர்தல் நடந்துள்ள நிலையில் ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர், இணை ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளர் பதவிகள் மட்டும் காலியாக இருப்பதாக எப்படி கூற முடியும் எனக் கேள்வி எழுப்பினர்.

கட்சி விதி திருத்தங்களுக்கு பொதுக்குழு ஒப்புதல் தேவையில்லை. ஏனென்றால் திருத்தம் அமலுக்கு வந்து விட்டது என்பதால் ஒப்புதல் என்பது வழக்கமான நடைமுறை தான் எனவும், கட்சி விதிகளில் திருத்தம் செய்ததற்கு ஒப்புதல் அளிக்கும் தீர்மானம் ஏதும் ஜூன் 23 பொதுக்குழுவில் கொண்டு வரப்படாத நிலையில் இரு பதவிகளும் எப்படி காலியாகும் எனவும் கேள்வி எழுப்பினர்.

இரு பதவிகளும் காலியாக உள்ளதாக முன் வைக்கப்பட்ட வாதங்கள் ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளத்தக்கதல்ல எனவும், கட்சி நிறுவனர் எம்.ஜி.ஆர். இறந்த போது என்ன ஆனது என விளக்கவில்லை எனக் குறிப்பிட்டனர்.

தலைவர்கள் உயிருடன் இல்லாத போது தான் பதவி காலி என கருத முடியும்… அதிமுக வை பொறுத்தவரை 1987 மற்றும் 2016ல் அப்படி ஒரு நிலை ஏற்பட்டது என்றனர்.

சிறப்பு பொதுக்குழு கூட்டத்துக்கு 15 நாள் நோட்டீஸ் தேவை இல்லை என இ பி எஸ் தரப்பில் வாதிட்டாலும், சிறப்பு பொதுக்குழுவாக இருந்தாலும், வழக்கமான பொதுக்குழுவாக இருந்தலும் கட்சி விதிப்படி ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளரும், இணை ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளரும் தான் கூட்ட வேண்டும் என விளக்கினர்.

அனைத்து தரப்பு வாதங்களையும் கேட்ட நீதிபதி கிருஷ்ணன் ராமசாமி, வழக்கின் தீர்ப்பை திங்கள் கிழமை 9 மணிக்கு தள்ளிவைத்துள்ளார்.

N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.A. No. of 2022
in
C.S. No. 118 of 2022
O. Panneerselvam
…APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
v.
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam & ors. …RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
INTERIM COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 5th RESPONDENT
I, Edappadi K. Palanisamy, S/o Karuppa Gounder, aged about 68 years, Headquarters Secretary, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, having office at No. 226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai- 600 014, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I state that I am the 5th Respondent herein and as such competent to swear to this Affidavit. I submit that I am well aware of the facts and circumstances of this case. I am filing this interim counter-affidavit only to place on record certain vital facts that have been conveniently left-out by the Applicant in his Affidavit or plaint. This interim Counter is being filed only to place these important facts and documents on record and due to paucity of time, I am not in a position to file a detailed Counter to the Application. I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to file a detailed Counter at a later stage, if there is a need for the same.

i. Supreme Court Order dated 06.07.2022

2. At the very outset, I submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(C) No. 11237 of 2022 vide order dated 06.07.2022 has held that the General Council Meeting scheduled on 11.07.2022 may proceed in accordance with law. The meeting that has been scheduled is being convened and to be conducted only in accordance with law. The Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also stayed the operation of the Order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CMP No. 9962 of 2022 in O.S.A No. 160 of 2022. By passing the above-said order, I state that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in effect stayed the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench which interfered with the internal affairs and functioning of a political Party.

3. I deny all the allegations and averments made by the Applicant in his Affidavit filed in support of the Original Application. I state that the Applicant has failed to come forth with the entire facts and documents and has also made several misleading statements. This interim counter affidavit is being filed to state the vital facts which have been willfully suppressed by the Applicant in his Affidavit.

ii. Non-Joinder, Mis-joinder of parties & Other preliminary objections on the maintainability of the suit:

4. Before adverting to the facts, it is necessary to submit that the suit as framed cannot be proceeded with since the plaint suffers from the vice of non-joinder and misjoinder of the necessary parties. The Applicant claims to have filed the suit in his Capacity as Coordinator/Treasurer of the AIADMK Party, yet to avoid proper representation for the defendants he has arrayed the AIADMK Party, its General Council and its Executive Council all being represented by Coordinator and Joint Coordinator. Therefore, the Applicant cannot sue and be sued. Such framing of parties itself renders the plaint defective and the suit cannot proceed until this anomaly is resolved by the Applicant. On the other hand it is an admitted position that the suit is not one in representative capacity since the reliefs claimed are all for the personal benefit of the Applicant. In such circumstances unless the Applicant resolves this issue, the suit ought not to be proceeded with. This confusion that is sought to be created is not illusionary it is intentional and has been done with purpose which would be clear from the facts as they stand.

5. The plaintiff has instituted the suit against one and half crore primary members, against the 2665 General Council Members, against over 250 Executive Council Members and against 74 Office bearers of the party. After having instituted such a suit, the plaintiff yet claims that he is the Coordinator of the party. This is completely fallacious.

6. The suit as framed is riddled with irreconcilable and inherent contradictions. I crave leave to raise such additional preliminary legal submissions on the maintainability at the time of arguments as well.

iii. The posts of Coordinator/Joint Coordinator have lapsed and the Office bearers have the authority to convene the meeting

7. I state that under Rule 43 of the Rules and Regulations of the AIADMK Party, the amendments to the Rules and Regulations can be carried out only by the General Council of the Party. No other body has any right to amend the Rules and Regulations. Thus the Party constitution clearly stipulates that the General Council is the Supreme body of the Party.

8. On 01.12.2021, the amendments to manner of election of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were proposed by Executive Council. The amendment specifically stated that the election to the post of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator would be done “jointly” on “single vote” by the “primary members”. As per the earlier Bye-laws, the election would be done by the General Council. It was specifically resolved at the Executive Council Meeting that these resolutions will be placed for ratification at the next convened General Council Meeting. The elections that happened to the posts thereafter was also based on this proposed amendment. The next immediate General Council meeting that was called for after the 01.12.2022 Executive Council meeting was on 23.06.2022 which should have ratified the amendments of the Executive Council and the election to the post of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator.

9. However at the meeting on 23.06.2022, the amendments were not ratified, Either for the reason that there was a resolution and that it was defeated along with the 23 resolutions or that no other resolution was brought forward. In any event, these amendments have lapsed.

10. As things stand, these proposed amendments have not been ratified by the General Council and therefore the proposed amendments and the elections stand lapsed from 23.06.2022. Consequently, both of us have vacated our posts. Therefore, the repeated claim by the Applicant that he is the Coordinator is incorrect. In any case, I have decided to abide by the decision of the General Council and therefore the Applicant has no independent presence as a Coordinator under the Rules and Regulations of the Party. I have intimated this position to the Election Commission of India as well vide my communication dated 28.06.2022.

11. Without prejudice, it is stated that if the Applicant has to exercise any function as a Coordinator that can be done only jointly with me as the Joint-Coordinator. Therefore, the repeated attempts of the Plaintiff/Applicant to claim himself as the Coordinator is only to stifle the functioning of the Party and has no legal basis. The Rules and regulations specifically provide in Rule 20A (vii) that when the position of the Coordinator or Joint Coordinator falls vacant until there is election to the said posts, the office bearers appointed by the previous Coordinator and Joint Coordinator shall carry forward the activities of the Party. Therefore, while there is no vaccum for the manner of functioning of the Party, the Applicant is only seeking to create a confusion.

12. This has happened in the past and the party has been guided by the office bearers. This happened in 1987 and more recently in 2017, after the demise of the Late Chief Minister Puratchi Thalaivi Dr. J. Jayalalithaa. Firstly the Office bearers convened a General Council Meeting on 29.12.2016 and thereafter when there was an impossibility for the Interim General Secretary to perform, the Office bearers based on the requisition received from General Council Members convened the General Council Meeting on 12.09.2017, which meeting was attended to by the Applicant/Plaintiff as well. In fact he was appointed as the Coordinator only in that meeting. Therefore any claim to the contrary is false.

iv. Overwhelming majority demanding single leadership

13. I state that as regards the present issues, the same began with the convening of the meeting of the General Council on 23.06.2022 by a notice dated 02.06.2022. The said notice was jointly issued by the Applicant and me. As has always been the case the notice never had any agenda as neither the Rules nor the custom or the bye-laws warranted one.

14. The trigger was at a Consultation meeting of the District Secretaries on 14.06.2022, where an overwhelming majority of the District Secretaries wanted the Party to adopt Single leadership as the dual leadership was not working well. The meeting went on for over four and half hours with opinions being expressed by each of the participants. Despite this, the Applicant has sought to even deny the events that transpired at that meeting in the plaint. In any event after the said meeting, the discussion and wish of the rank and file of the Party demanded for single leadership gained momentum and the wish started translating into anticipation and more of a demand. It will not be out of place to mention that the District Secretaries were articulating the feedback they have received from the primary members of their Party. At this point of time, it became clear to the Applicant that he has lost confidence and trust of the rank and file of the Party.

v. Applicant’s prejudicial and vexatious acts

15. The Applicant had after the said meeting participated in two meetings of the Resolution Drafting Committee for drafting the resolutions that could be placed before the General Council on 16.06.2022 and 18.06.2022, though the same was not required by the bye-law. The said activity was undertaken only at the request of the Applicant, to show him the respect for the post he held. Despite this, the Applicant addressed a letter dated 19.06.2022 along with Thiru. P. Vaithiyalingam suggesting that the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022 be adjourned due to “extra-ordinary” circumstances. I replied to the said letter on 20.06.2022 denying any such circumstances and stated that the meeting on 23.06.2022 shall proceed as planned.

16. Thereafter the Applicant intervened in the petition filed for police protection for the meeting before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 15621/2022. The Applicant despite allegedly being the Coordinator, as claimed by him (on that day) opposed that petition. However, this Hon’ble Court directed the police to grant protection. After opposing in Court, the Applicant even wrote a complaint to the Avadi Police Commissioner complaining about the meeting and calling for the same to be cancelled.

17. After all these attempts to cancel the General Council Meeting failed, the Applicant through his supporter, Thiru. Shanmugam, who is a General Council Member filed suit bearing C.S.111/2022 seeking for an injunction from conducting any meeting of the General Council until the disputes in the Party are resolved. The interim relief sought for was for stay of the meeting to be held on 23.06.2022.

18. While this Hon’ble Court refused to grant any relief without notice, the same was challenged vide OSA No. 160 of 2022. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed an Order of injunction restraining the defendants from passing any resolution at the General Council apart from the 23 resolutions that were approved by the Applicant herein.

19. It is pertinent to mention that the alleged 23 resolutions, the index of which was handed over to the Court- with a copy of the same not being given to me or my Counsels at point of the hearing, were the self-claimed resolutions of the Applicant. These resolutions were neither finalized by the Resolution drafting committee or by me. In any event these resolutions were meaningless unless they were approved or passed at the General Council Meeting.

20. Pursuant to the Order of the Division Bench on 23.06.2022, even though the copy of the Order was not made available, with the direction that was read out, the General Council met on 23.06.2022. The Orders of the Division Bench were completely adhered to by the General Council.

vi. Demand for single leadership in meeting dated 23.06.2022

21. The Applicant herein proposed the name of the 4th Respondent as the Interim Presidium Chairman and I seconded the said proposal. Thereafter the 23 resolutions that were placed came to be rejected by the General Council. About 98% of the members of the General Council wanted the issue of Single leadership to be discussed and resolved before any other resolutions were to be placed before it.

22. The 4th Respondent was elected as the Presidium Chairman of the Party as provided under Rule-23 of the Rules and Regulations of the Party at the General Council Meeting.

23. At the meeting 2190 members out of the total 2665 members (around 82%) made a requisition for a General Council Meeting to be convened immediately with the date being announced at the very same meeting for discussing and taking decisions on single leadership. Clearly, the members wanted a Special meeting under Rule 19 (vii) to be convened within 30 days of its requisition.

24. As mentioned above, with the non-ratification of the amendments to the bye-laws made on 01.12.2021 lapsed and so did the election of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator. Therefore, the requisition for the meeting by 2190 members that was read out at the meeting was discussed by the office bearers at the meeting and it was decided to convene the General Council on 11.07.2022. This decision was announced by the 4th respondent at the meeting on 23.06.2022. The notice of the meeting was given by way of announcement at the meeting itself where all the intended noticees were expected to be present.

vii. Fresh Meeting dated 11.07.2022 – as per the bye-laws of AIADMK Party

25. I submit that the meeting that is to be held on 11.07.2022 is a fresh meeting of the General Council and not an adjourned meeting of the General Council that was convened on 23.06.2022. Therefore, the notice for the meeting on 11.07.2022 at 9.15 AM was made on 23.06.2022 itself ie., 18 days prior to the date of the meeting.

26. In any case the meeting being one by requisition does not contemplate any specific separate notice. This is clear from the Rules and Regulations itself. The 15 day notice is necessary only for the meeting convened by the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator. When it is a requisitioner’s meeting as provided under Rule 19 (vii) of the byelaws the same has to be conducted within 30 days and there is no requirement of any specific length of notice. The Rules and Regulations in Tamil makes this aspect even more clear.

27. Secondly assuming that there is a need for 15 days notice, in this case there is a 18 days notice that was given. The bye-laws do not contemplate any written notice. The announcement made at the floor of the house is the notice. All members (except few) of the General Council were present. Even they knew instantly since the news was flashed in TV and newspapers. Nobody has complained that they did not have knowledge or notice. I submit that the contention of the Applicant that there was no sufficient notice of 15 days as per the bylaws is wholly incorrect. When the General Council meeting was convened on 23.06.2022, the 4th Respondent herein announced the date of the next General Council Meeting and as such every member of the General Council including the Applicant herein was well aware of the same.

28. Furthermore, the announcement of the next date of the General Council was widely circulated in all forms of media and the Applicant was very well aware. Interestingly, I am advised to state that in the cause of action paragraph in the Plaint, the Applicant avers that the cause of action for the suit arose on 23.06.2022 when the General Council of the Party was held “during which the date of next General Council meeting was illegally fixed by the Defendants without the authorization of the Plaintiff.” I humbly submit that this is sufficient to state that the Applicant had constructive notice of the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022, even as early as on 23.06.2022 when the previous General Council Meeting was convened. By no stretch of imagination could the Applicant state that he was made aware of the General Council Meeting only upon receipt of the invitation on 01.07.2022.

29. Pursuant to the said notice which was given at the meeting based on the request from 2190 members, 2432 members out of the 2665 members submitted a list of agenda items that they wanted to discuss at the meeting on 11.07.2022. Once the said request was received, I called for the meeting all the Head Quarters Office bearers as the Headquarters Secretary on 27.06.2022. The Applicant has called this meeting as invalid without any rhyme or reason.

30. The Applicant did not attend the meeting as well. Since the Applicant did not attend the meeting, the Party could not take decisions on political matters such as the impending candidates in the bye-elections for the local bodies.

31. At the meeting the invitation for the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 that was announced on 23.06.2022 was finalized and the same was to be dispatched to all the members. I state that there is no illegality in the above-said meeting of the office bearers whatsoever. The Rules and regulations specifically provide in Rule 20A (vii) that when the position of the Coordinator or Joint Coordinator falls vacant until there is election to the said posts, the office bearers appointed by the previous Coordinator and Joint Coordinator shall carry forward the activities of the Party.

32. In fact, the invitation was prepared and circulated as was done previously for the meeting on 12.09.2017 when the post of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator was created. Therefore, any claim to any rule infraction is erroneous and the same is denied.

Other issues:

33. The Applicant addressed a letter to Election Commission of India making several false claims regarding the meeting on 23.06.2022 and the meeting on 27.06.2022. The same was responded to by me with another letter to the Election Commission of India and with all the supporting documents. Thereafter the Applicant addressed a letter dated 29.06.2022 stating that he is willing to sign the Form A and Form B for the by-polls and that the same be sent to him. I responded to the same indicating how absurd the claim is when the Party has not even announced official candidates. I state that, the letter dated 29.06.2022 is clearly an afterthought to absolve himself of any responsibility.

34. In the meantime, the Applicant in C.S. 111 of 2022 filed applications before the Division Bench in OSA 160/2022 seeking for stay of the meeting on 11.07.2022 as well as seeking to punish the respondents for contempt. I had preferred an appeal against the Order dated 23.06.2022 of the Division Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said matter on 06.07.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an Order of stay of operation of the Order dated 23.06.2022 and held that the meeting on 11.07.2022 can proceed as per the rules and regulations.

35. It is in this background that the above suit has been filed. The suit is filed by one disgruntled former Coordinator against the one and half crores primary members of the Party-who are represented by the 2665 members of the General Council. The suit is to safeguard the interest of an individual as against the wishes of the entire Party. In the present case, the preparations for the meeting on 11.07.2022 has been completely undertaken with the venue and arrangements being fully readied and the invitations having reached out to all the members. Therefore, the reliefs sought for being injunction of the meeting is completely misplaced and ought to be rejected.

36. Further it is outrageous to state that the present suit is filed for the welfare of the 1st Respondent Party. I state that the Applicant has portrayed as though the present suit is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of the primary members of the 1st Respondent Party. I submit that such a statement is not only misleading, but also illegal, for the reason that the Applicant has not sought for the leave of the suit to be filed in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). Further, I submit that the averment that the Applicant is aggrieved by the convening of the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 itself runs contradictory to the claim of the Applicant that the suit is being filed for the “welfare of the Party” and not “against the interests of the Party.” Having portrayed the present suit to be of a representative character, the Applicant cannot in the same breath plead that he is personally aggrieved by the convening of the General Council Meeting. The Application therefore deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further, the plaintiff does not have any support whatsoever from the entire rank and file of the party, barring a few individual supporters. The suit has been filed against the part, the Executive council and the general council and this single fact exposes the fact the plaintiff stands completely isolated without any support.

37. I reiterate that the General Council scheduled for 11.07.2022 is completely in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the 1st Respondent Party. As per Rule 19(vii) the power to call for the General Council Meeting vests with the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator who shall give an advance notice of 15 days. However, in the event of at least one-fifth of the General Council Members requesting for the General Council Meeting to be convened, the same has to be mandatorily done within 30 days from such request. They have also indicated the Agenda for the meeting. As submitted above, on 23.06.2022 itself, 2190 members requested for the next General Council Meeting to be convened, which is clearly over and above the minimum requirement of one-fifth of the members. When the requisition happened on 23.06.2022, the General Council Meeting has to be necessarily held on or before 22.07.2022, i.e. within 30 days. It is in these circumstances that the General Council Meeting came to be scheduled for 11.07.2022 based on the request of the General Council Members.

38. I state that none of the above facts have been placed by the Applicant before this Hon’ble Court in his Affidavit and the same have been conveniently suppressed for the reasons best known to the Applicant. I submit that the Applicant has deliberately made certain misleading statements in the Affidavit, to successfully suppress the material facts before this Hon’ble Court. Having suppressed such vital facts, I submit that the Applicant is not entitled to any relief much less an ad interim injunction in the present case. I state that the Applicant’s conduct is condemnable in as much as he has failed to disclose several vital facts and documents while seeking for a relief of interim injunction.

39. I state that the above facts have been placed on record, only for the reasons that the Applicant has failed to disclose the same before this Hon’ble Court. I state that the Applicant has been taking every possible step to scuttle the functioning of the 1st Respondent Party, in an attempt to derail the democratic process of holding a General Council Meeting based on the request of majority members. It is not being done in the interest of members but only in his own selfish interest, to save his own skin.

40. The balance of convenience is clearly in favour of 1.5 crore primary members of the AIADMK Party as any delay in resolving the issues that directly concerns the inner working of the Party has to be resolved in the General Council by having free, frank and unhindered discussions among the members. Therefore, any preemptive order that touches upon the aforesaid will cause irreparable and irreversible injury and hardship to AIADMK Party. Moreso, when prima facie the suit filed by the Applicant is not maintainable and riddled with inherent and irreconcilable contradictions.

41. I hereby reserve my right to file a detailed counter affidavit, in addition to the present interim counter affidavit, if the need arises at a later point of time.

For the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take on record this Interim Counter Affidavit and dismiss the above Original Application with exemplary costs and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai
on this the 8th day of July 2022
and signed his name in my presence
BEFORE ME

ADVOCATE::CHENNAI

You may also like...