Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen & Anr vs Dr. Navojit Basu & Ors on 26 September, 2014
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1 26.09.2014
Srimanta C. O. 3306 of 2014 44 The Institute of Indian Foundrymen & Anr.
-Vs.-
Dr. Navojit Basu & Ors.
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Ms. Pubali Sinha Chowdhury, Mr. Souvik Ganguly.
...For the Petitioners.
Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, Mr. Narayan Chandra Mondal, Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Ms. P. Koley.
...For the Opposite Parties.
The defendants complain of an ex parte ad interim order passed in an appeal from the refusal of an ex parte ad interim injunction.
It appears from the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, that the plaintiffs claim to be bonafide members of the petitioner society who had been unfairly expelled from the society, whereupon the plaintiffs had requisitioned an extraordinary general meeting of the society. The further case of the plaintiffs appears to have been that the society and persons in control thereof were purporting to convene the annual general meeting of the society and push the agenda thereat to scuttle the resolutions proposed at the requisitionists' meeting.
The Trial Court declined the ex parte ad interim order on September 08, 2014, inter alia, on the ground that since the cause of action to file the suit arose on May 03, 2014 but the suit had been filed on September 08,2014, there was no sense of 2 urgency reflected from the conduct of the plaintiffs. The Trial Court put the plaintiffs to a commendable test which merits emulation.
However, without referring to the circumstances in which the Trial Court declined the ad interim injunction, the Appellate Court considered the matter afresh and restrained the petitioner society from giving effect to the resolutions that were then proposed to be passed at its annual general meeting then convened to be held on September 19 and 20, 2014.
The Appellate Court appears to have missed the reason indicated in the Trial Court order for declining the ex parte injunction. It is necessary to reiterate that an ex parte order is an exception and not the rule. Merely because a suit has been filed or an appeal has been preferred, it is not implied that an order has to be passed at the ad interim stage without consideration of the merits of the matter or, more importantly, the balance of convenience.
Apart from the order impugned not reflecting any consideration of the order passed by the Trial Court, there is no discussion as to the balance of convenience. The Appellate Court order also betrays the ignorance of the nature of business that is generally conducted at annual general meetings. Ordinarily, annual general meetings of companies and societies are held, inter alia, to elect the office-bearers of the companies and societies who would carry on the business or the objects of the companies or societies for the next year. 3
Further, the appellate court completely ignored the doctrine of indoor management. Courts are loathe to interfere with the internal matters of bodies corporate and societies, unless a manifest case of injustice or fraud is made out.
The order impugned suffers from the malaise that merely because the appeal may become infructuous upon an ad interim injunction being declined, the Court perceives to be obliged to pass an order.
Since the assumption of jurisdiction by the Appellate Court without considering the grounds on which the Trial Court declined the ad interim injunction appears to be irregular and improper, the order impugned dated September 16, 2014 is set aside and the appeal disposed of. The parties should immediately inform the Appellate Court so that it can record the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 340 of 2014.
The Trial Court is now requested to ensure that the plaintiffs' injunction application is taken up and disposed of within a period of one month after the reopening of the Court following the Puja Vacation. If no written objection has been filed to the injunction application by the defendants, such written objection be filed by October 27, 2014; rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
It is also made clear that the resolutions passed at the relevant annual general meeting will abide by the result of the injunction application.
4
It is submitted by the petitioners herein that neither the plaint nor the injunction application filed in the Trial Court has been served on them. Without prejudice to the petitioners' contentions, Advocate representing the plaintiffs in this Court should forward copies of the plaint and the injunction application pending before the Trial Court to Advocate for the petitioners herein by October 4, 2014.
C. O. 3306 of 2014 is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)