Bangalore District Court
The Karnataka State Road Transport vs M. Lagumaiah on 28 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH74)
Present: Sri.YAMANAPPA BAMMANAGI,
B.A., LL.B., (SPl.,)
LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2019.
O.S. No.25196/ 2014
Plaintiff: The Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation SC/ST Employees Union ®
A registered Trade Union,
Having office at no. 76/77,
Krishna Krupa, 2nd main Link Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore - 560 020.
(Rep. by its General Secretary
Sri. Venkataramanappa)
(By Sri. K. Anil Kumar - Adv.)
V/s
Defendants: M. Lagumaiah.
Aged about 52 years,
S/o. Munisadappa,
R/a. No. 192, 'Kavya nilaya',
Bodana Hosahalli,
Samethanahalli post,
Bangalore - 560 067.
2. D. Prasad,
S/o. Sangappa,
Aged about 51 years,
2 O.S.No.25196/2014
R/a. Dambala,
Mundaragi Taluk,
Gadag District.
3. The Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation, Central Office,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(Rep. by its Managing Director)
4. The Bangalore Metropolitan
Transporate Corporation, BMTC
Central Office, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(Rep. by its Managing Director)
5. The North East Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation,
NEKRTC, Central Office,
Gulbarga.
(Rep. by its Managing Director)
6. The North West Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation,
NWKRTC, Central Office,
Hubli.
(Rep. by its Managing Director)
(By Sri. D.S. Lingaraja - Adv. for D.1
Sri. Neelakantappa K. Pujar - Adv. for D.2,
Sri. B.L. Sanjeev - Adv. for D.3, 4 & 5)
3 O.S.No.25196/2014
Date of Institution of the suit 04.02.2014
Nature of the (Suit or pronote,
suit for declaration and
INJUNCTION SUIT
possession, suit for injunction,
etc.)
Date of the commencement of
28.01.2017
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was
27.11.2019
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 5 9 25
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
(CCH74), Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the first and second Defendants from acting as the office bearers of the Plaintiff union or from using the name and registration Number of the Plaintiff union. Further permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.3 to 6 from entertaining the illegal acts of Defendant No.1 and 2. Further mandatory 4 O.S.No.25196/2014 injunction directing the Defendant No.3 to 6 to take action against the Defendant No.1 & 2 as per their byelaws.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case:
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, Plaintiff is the registered trade union of employees of SC,ST employed in KSRTC, BMTC, NWKRTC and NEKRTC, Same is registered with assistant labour commissioner of trade union, Bengaluru. Further contended that the trade union of the Plaintiff is constituted in the year 1978. the main purpose of the trade union is to organize SC/ST employees of the KSRTC, secure fair, just and reasonable service conditions by peaceful and legitimate and constitutional methods more particularly the employees employed in the various unit of the Karnataka State transport corporation, employees of ClauseI, II, III and IV of schedule cast and schedule tribe. The Plaintiff union has been recognized by the management of the Karnataka State Road transport corporation, along with BMTC, NWKRTC and NEKRTC. Further it is the case of the Plaintiff that at the time when Plaintiff prayed union was constituted, the KSRTC had its operation in entire State of Karnataka but Karnataka State had 5 O.S.No.25196/2014 formed additional corporations. So, the Plaintiff union recognized by all the aforesaid corporation. Now the members of the trade union is more than 600. The executive committee of Plaintiff union comprises 30 members, to be elected by general body the members of the executive committee elects from amongst the executive committee members, elects office bearers such as president, vicepresident, general secretary and treasurer.
3. It is the case of Plaintiff that first Defendant is office bearer of another association called the KSRTC SC,ST officers and employees welfare association. The first Defendant claiming to have support of large number of SC/ST employees of KSRTC approached the Plaintiff contending that he continued to be office bearer of the KSRTC SC/ST officers and employees welfare association and expressed his desire to merge the said union with a Plaintiff trade union. However, it was later noticed that first Defendant has already expelled from the said union and first defendant had no authority to represent KSRTC SC/ST, officers and employees welfare association to merge the same with Plaintiff trade union. The first Defendant had become general 6 O.S.No.25196/2014 secretary of the Plaintiff union, started to usurp the powers of all office bearers of trade union. Therefore the Plaintiff union felt that first Defendant is detrimental to the union. For that the Plaintiff union has filed O.S.No.25901/2012, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the first Defendant and others and brought interim injunction order against first Defendant and others and later on the said suit was withdrawn. The Plaintiff union realized that the first Defendant was seeking to establish himself as sole authority of the Plaintiff union and trampling of the rights of other officer. Consequently the special general body meeting of Plaintiff Union was held at Gulbarga on 25032012, in the said meeting it was resolved to suspend the first Defendant from the post of general secretary of the Plaintiff union and similarly Sri.Y.Venkata Swamy was also suspended from the post of treasurer of Plaintiff union. The resolution suspending the first Defendant from the post of general secretary was communicated to the labour commissioner and registered of trade unions, beside the managing director and chief labour welfare of the KSRTC, BMTC, NWKRTC and NEKRTC, same was published in Sanjeevini 7 O.S.No.25196/2014 Daily News Paper. The copy of the resolution has been communicated to all the members of the plaintiff union.
4. Such being the fact the defendant No.1, after his suspension has called meeting on 11.03.2012, removed the state president Sri. Jakkappanavar F.H. So, the defendant was no more General Secretary of plaintiff union on 11.03.2012, because he was already removed from the plaintiff union by resolution. So the defendant No.1 has no authority to remove the State President of the plaintiff union. The reelected list of office bearers of the plaintiff union in the General Body Meeting held at Davangere, has been published in Vijay Karnataka Daily News Paper on 05.04.2012. But, defendant No.1 got issued legal notice dated 19.03.2012, claiming himself to be the General Secretary of the plaintiff union and office bearers of the plaintiff had no authority to convene the General Body Meeting, not only this the defendant No.1 has distributed hand bills dated 12.04.2012, on the letter head of the plaintiff union calling on executive committee members for electing the President and office bearers of the plaintiff union.
8 O.S.No.25196/2014
5. Hence, the defendant No.1 had no authority to call any General Body Meeting of executive committee of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are misused the name of the plaintiff union without any authority of law and called for General Body Meeting for election of President and other office bearers, though their existing committee.
6. In order to prevent the illegal activities of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 the plaintiff union has filed suit O.S. No. 25901/2012, for permanent injunction against defendant No.1 and others. In the said suit interim order was passed against the defendant No.1 restraining him from conducting any meeting. Since defendant No.1 has registered separate association and started to function. Hence, the plaintiff union had withdrawn the suit O.S.NO. 25901/2012. When plaintiff had withdrawn the said suit, the defendant No.1 again started his illegal act against the plaintiff union. In order to prevent such illegal act of defendant No.1 colluding with defendant No.2, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction.
9 O.S.No.25196/2014
7. In pursuance of the suit summons the defendants appeared through their counsels. The defendant Nos. 1,2 and 4 have filed their written statement but defendant Nos. 3,5 and 6 have not filed their written statement. The defendant No.1 has contended in his written statement that plaintiff's suit is not maintainable either in law or fact hence, suit is liable to be dismissed and denied the entire case of the plaintiff except some admitted as true.
8. It is contended in the written statement that the contents of Para No.7 of the plaint are false and denied that the executive committee of the plaintiff union comprises of thirty members to be elected by General Body Meeting, the members of the executive committee elected from among the executive committee members, elect the office bearers such as President, Vice President, General Secretary and Treasurer from the members of executive committee and office bearers are also elected in respect of each of the division level, these facts have been denied by defendant No.1. Further denied that defendant No.1 had formed another association called KSRTC SC/ST officers and employees welfare 10 O.S.No.25196/2014 association. The KSRTC, SC/ST officers and employees welfare association is nothing to do with the plaintiff union function, this association was formed only for the purpose of welfare of the employees and its officers, for the reasons that the plaintiff union is not at all functioning properly and not looking after the welfare of officers and employees. Therefore, this another association was formed only for the purpose of protecting the welfare of the association members. Further, contended that the defendant No.1 has not stated that he had support of large number of SCST employees of the KSRTC, approached the plaintiff union to continue to be the office bearers of the KSRTC SC/ST officers and employees welfare association and defendant No.1 wanted to merge with the plaintiff union. So according to defendant No.1 he has never approached the plaintiff union regarding merging of the association with plaintiff union as alleged in Para No.9 of the plaint. Further defendant No.1 denied that he was expelled from the plaintiff union and fact stated in the plaint Para No.11. The General Body Meeting held at Gulbarga on 25.03.2012 is not legal and resolution made for suspension of the defendant No.1 from 11 O.S.No.25196/2014 the General Secretary post of the plaintiff union, similarly Y. Venkataswamy was also suspended from the post of Treasurer, is denied as said meeting was not legal one and plaintiff have no right to call such General Body Meeting at Gulbarga. Therefore, in the said meeting they cannot suspend the defendant No.1 and one Venkataswamy.
9. Further the defendant No.1 denied the contents of Para No.12 and 13 of the plaint as false contending that the defendant No.1 has no authority to hold the meeting on 11.03.2012 and removed the state President K.H. Jakkappanavar, is without authority as defendant No.1 was suspended from the post in the plaintiff union at the time when defendant was called the General Body Meeting on 11.03.2012, is not correct and further denied fact stated in the Para No. 15 and 16 further defendant No.1 had called meeting by distributing hand bills in the letter head of plaintiff union. With this defendant No.1 prayed for dismissal of suit with cost.
10. Defendant No.2 has appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement. The defendant No.2 has stated in the 12 O.S.No.25196/2014 written statement as stated the fact in the written statement of defendant No.1 and denied the case of the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of suit.
11. Defendant No.4 has filed his written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is frivolous, vexatious, is abuse of process of law as plaintiff has filed this suit suppressing the material facts, plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed and further denied the averments of the plaint on parawise basis without contending any specific case. On basis of the pleading my learned predecessor has framed the following :
ISSUES
1. Whether Plaintiff Union proves that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are to be restrained from acting as the office bearers of the plaintiff union or from using name and registration No. of the plaintiff union ?
2. Whether Plaintiff union further proves that the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are to be restrained from entertaining the illegal Act of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 ?13 O.S.No.25196/2014
3. Whether Plaintiff union proves that it is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction as sought for in the plaint ?
4. What order or decree?
12. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the General Secretary of the plaintiff union is examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and closed. The defendants though appeared through counsel and filed written statement denied the case of the plaintiff but, none of the defendants prosecuted. When case was posted for cross of Pw1, after giving sufficient opportunity to defendant for cross of Pw1, cross of Pw1 was taken as nil, posted for defendant's evidence. When suit was posted for defendant's evidence defendants and their counsel remained absent regularly after giving sufficient opportunity the defendant's evidence was taken as nil and posted for arguments. However, arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiff was heard and posted for arguments of defendants. When suit was posted for arguments of defendants, defendant's and their counsel remained absent, arguments of defendant's side taken as heard.
13. My answer to above Issues are as follows:
14 O.S.No.25196/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.4 : As per the final order, for the following: REASONS
14. Issue No.1: It is the case of the plaintiff union that the plaintiff union is registered trade union of employees of SC/ST exposed in KSRTC, BMTC,k NWKRT and NEERTC registered with the Assistant Labour commissioner of Trade unions, vide No. ALC/RTU/(BII)40/1978 for the SC/ST employees of the KSRTC and to secure fair and reasonable service conditions, which comprises more than 600 employees as its members, the executive committee of Trade Union comprises 30 members to be elected by the General Body. The members of the executive committee elected are to be elected from the executive committee members such as President, Vice President, General Secretary, Treasurer. Further Pw1 deposed before the court that first defendant is office bearer of another association called KSRTC SC/ST officers 15 O.S.No.25196/2014 and Employees Welfare Association. Due to antiparty activities first defendant was expelled from the members of his Association. The defendant No.1 had approached the plaintiff union stating that he had support of large number of SC/ST employees of his Association. He merged his Association with plaintiff union, without disclosing the fact that defendant No.1 was expelled from his Association by misrepresenting became General Secretary of the plaintiff union, started to use powers to an extent that he had sole authority of the plaintiff union initially to members of plaintiff union tolerated the act of defendant No.1, when plaintiff union realized the act of defendant trampler over the rights of office bearer of plaintiff union. The plaintiff union has held special General Body meeting of the plaintiff union at Gulbarga on 25.03.2012 and core committee has passed resolution suspending the first defendant from the post of General Secretary of the plaintiff union and similarly Sri. Y. Venkataswamy was also suspended from the post of Treasurer of the plaintiff union, same was communicated to the Labour Committee and Registrar of Trade Union and Managing Director and Chief Labour Welfare 16 O.S.No.25196/2014 officer of the KSRTC, BMTC, NWKRTC and NEKRTC. Even after suspension, the defendant No.1 did not stop his illegal act and called a meeting on 11.03.2012, claimed to have removed the State President of plaintiff union F.H. Jakkappanavar which is totally illegal, because the defendant No.1 was already removed from the post of General Secretary of plaintiff union, so, he had no authority to call meeting of plaintiff's union members. The meeting called on 11.03.2012, by defendant No.1 is illegal, whatever resolution passed is not binding on the plaintiff union, the defendant No.1 even after suspension continued distributing hand bills purposely to appoint a new president and called for elections, when elected Body is already functioning , so the act of the defendant is illegal in support of his oral evidence the plaintiff union has produced documents which were marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the byelaws of the plaintiff's union dated 29.03.2012, Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the byelaws of the plaintiff's union dated 14.06.2015, Ex.P.3 is the list of members of plaintiff's union, Ex.P.4 is the members list of plaintiff's union dated 18.03.2014, Ex.P.5 is the complaint 17 O.S.No.25196/2014 lodged by plaintiff's union, Ex.P.6 is the suspension order of defendant No.1. Ex.P.7 is the 6 original hand bill and invitations regarding celebrations of certain functions arranged by the plaintiff union, Ex.P.8 is the Photographs pertaining to the functions held by the plaintiff's union along with C.D., Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No. 25901/2012, Ex.P.10 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No. 25901/21012, Ex.P. 11 is the certified copy of the IA No.1 in O.S.No. 25901/2012, Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of the order passed on IA No.1 in O.S.No. 25901/2012, Ex.P. 13 is the of the order sheet in O.S.No. 26509/2013, Ex.P. 14 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No. 26509/2013, Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of the orders passed on IA No.1 in O.S.No. 6450/2014.
15. Now this relevant appreciate Ex.P.6, Ex.P.6 is the letter dated 25.02.2012 forwarded by the plaintiff union to the Director KSRTC, Central Office, Bengaluru and Communicated about the suspension of defendant No.1 and Y. Venkataramanappa as per resolution dated 25.02.2012 which reads thus:
18 O.S.No.25196/2014
ಮಮಲಲಲಡ ಪದದಧಕದರ ಸಲಘದ ವರರರಮದ ಚಟಟವಟಕರಗಳಲಲ ಭದಗಯದಗರಟವ ಘಟನರಗಳಳ ಸದಕ ಸಹತ ಲಭಭವದಗದಟದ, ಉಳದ ವಚದರಣರ ಮದಡಲಟ ಕಕಮ ಜರಟಗಸ, ಶಕಮ ಎಲ.ಲಗಮಯಭ ಇವರನಟನ ನಮಮ ಸಲಘದ ಪಕಧದನಕದಯರದಶರ ಹಟದರದಯಲದ ಹದಗರ ಶಕಮ ವರವ.ವರಲಕಟಸದಸಮ ಇವರನಟನ ಖಜದಲಚ ಹಟದರದಯಲದ ಅಮದನತಗರರಳಸಲಟ ಗಟ ಲಲಗರ ವಶರಮಷ ಸದಸಭರ ಹದಗರ ಕರರಮರ ಕಮಮಟ ಸಭರಯಟ ದದ 25.02.2012 ರಲದಟ ಸಭರಯಲಲ ತಮಮದರನಸದಲತರ ಅಮದನತನಲಲ ಇಡಲದಗದರ. ರದಜಭ ಪಕಧದನ ಕದಯರದಶರ ಹರರಣರಗದರಕರಯನಟನ ಶಕಮ ಎಲ.ಕರ.ರರಮವಣಣ ಎಸ.ಕರ.ಮವಸರರಟ ವಭದಗ ಅವರಗರ ವಹಸಲದಗದರ. ಹದಗರ ರದಜಭಖಜದಲಚ ಹಟದರದಯಲಲ ಶಕಮ ಸ.ಗರರಮಪ ನವದರಹಕರಟ ಘಟಕ - 27 ಬರಲಗಳಳರಟ ಅವರನರನ ನರಮಮಸಲದಗದರ. ದಯವಟಟಟ ಸಹಕರಸಲಟ ಕರರಮರದರ.
16. I have perused Ex.P.7 are 5 hand bills distributed by the defendant No.1 inviting members of union to attend the General Body dated 29.03.2012, on appreciation of Ex.P.6 and 7 it is clear that though defendant No.1 was suspended already as per resolution dated 25.02.2012 but, he did not stop the activities as General Secretary of plaintiff union which is against the resolution passed by the plaintiff union . Ex.P.9 to 12 is the order sheet, plaint, IA filed u/o. 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and orders on IA in O.S.No. 25901/2012. I have perused Ex.P.9 to 12, on perusal it clearly shows that the present plaintiff has filed suit for injunction against the present defendant and another for permanent 19 O.S.No.25196/2014 injunction restraining the defendant No.1 and another from the illegal activities against the plaintiff union, in the said suit present plaintiff had filed IA u/o. 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, the court has passed the interim order restraining the defendant No.1 from the activities against the plaintiff union.
17. Now it is relevant to appreciate oral evidence of plaintiff/ Pw1 which reads thus :
"I submit that the plaintiff having no other any alternative in view of the continued illegal acts being reported by the first defendant the plaintiff approached the Hon'ble court by filing the O.S. 25901/2012 for seeking relief of permanent injunction against the first defendant and another, the Hon'ble court (CCH22) after hearing the matter on the interlocutory application the interim orders was passed against the defendants therein for restraining them from conducting the meetings of the plaintiff union. The plaintiff submits that since defendant No.1 registered separate Association called "KSRTC SC/ST employees welfare Association" and started to function the plaintiff Union withdraw the OS No. 25901/2012 the copy of the byelaws of the defendant No.1 20 O.S.No.25196/2014 having registered a separate Association and the copy of the order sheet in OS No. 25901/2012 is produced."
18. On perusal of evidence of Pw1 as extracted above it is clear that when interim order was passed against the defendant No.1 in previous suit restraining the defendant No.1 from conducting the meetings, hence defendant No.1 has registered separate Association called KSRTC SC/ST Employees Welfare Association. So, the plaintiff union had withdrawn the suit in O.S.No. 25901/2012, when suit was withdrawn, taking the advantage of withdrawal of suit, defendant No.1 again started illegal activities against the plaintiff union by publishing hand bills. So, again the plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 to restrain the defendant No.1 from illegal activities against the plaintiff union.
19. Now it is relevant to appreciate Ex.P.15. I have perused Ex.P.15. Ex.P.15 is the orders passed in O.s. No. 6450/2014 filed against the present plaintiff union Jakkanavar.K.H. and Venkataramanappa General Secretary of plaintiff union by President Sri. D. Prasad in which IA u/o. 39 21 O.S.No.25196/2014 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was filed against the plaintiff Venkataramanappa and Jakkannanavar, restraining them from interfering with activities of the plaintiff union. Same was dismissed.
20. This suit was filed for declaration that plaintiff in the said suit was legally elected office bearers of plaintiff union, when Assistant Labour Commissioner had accepted.
21. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence it is clear that the defendant No.1 and 2 were suspended from the plaintiff union for their activities against the plaintiff union as per resolution passed. Further it is clear that even after suspension, the defendant No.1 has called General Body and distributed hand bills calling elections though there was existing elected body functioning, without any authority. So, acts of defendant amounts to without authority and against the plaintiff union, under such circumstances, the President has got power to suspend any members of union whose activities are found against union as per bylaws.
22 O.S.No.25196/2014
22. Though defendants appeared through their counsels filed their written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. But no defendants did choose to cross examine Pw1 even sufficient opportunity has been provided. That apart the defendants did not choose to lead their evidence to substantiate their defence taken in the written statement. So the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff remained unchallenged and there is no material to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff.
23. On careful appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and reasons assigned above I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved this issue with cogent evidence hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
24. Issue No. 2: The plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 to take action against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for their illegal activities against the plaintiff union. The defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are neither members of plaintiff union nor they bound by the byelaws. There is no material produced by the plaintiff to have a mandatory 23 O.S.No.25196/2014 injunction that defendant Nos. 3 to 6 have refused to take action against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for their acts.
25. Further there is no material to show that the plaintiff union has lodged complaint before the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 and defendant Nos. 3 to 6 were failed to take any action against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. I have perused materials placed before the court and evidence of Pw1, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15, on perusal of the same it is clear that there is no material to grant mandatory injunction against the defendant Nos. 3 to 6. Though Ex.P.6 discloses that plaintiff has communicated to the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 about the resolution but plaintiff failed to prove that plaintiff have made request to the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 for necessary action against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant Nos. 3 to 6 failed to take any action. With this I hold that plaintiff to failed to prove this issue hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
26. Issue No.3 : It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 was suspended as per the resolution passed in the General Body meeting held on 25.03.2012 at Gulbarga, even after suspension of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 has started to 24 O.S.No.25196/2014 distribute the hand bills, other activities against the plaintiff union as it could be seen from the Ex.P.6 and 7. Pw1 deposed in the chief examination at Para No.17 which reads thus :
"I submit that after withdrawing the O.S. 25901/2012 the defendants no.1 are misusing and taking undue advantage of the withdrawal of the suit and making illegal acts and once again by publishing the hand bills dated 20.1.2014 and his lawyer's letter dated .. 2014 by making allegations against the plaintiff union President and other things which not at all happened in the Hon'ble Court. The defendant No.1 acts herein started once again as he is the core authority of the Union. Hence, the plaintiff has no other alternative without approaching this Hon'ble court by filing this above suit to stop the illegal acts of the defendant's no."
27. The second part of this issue is the relief of mandatory injunction sought against the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 ofcourse, passing of resolution has been communicated to defendant Nos. 3 to 6 but the plaintiff failed to prove the fact that the plaintiff union has produced the resolution passed by the plaintiff union with regard to action taken against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. 25 O.S.No.25196/2014 Further plaintiff has not contended that plaintiff union has lodged complaint before the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 for necessary action against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. On perusal of the material placed before the court it is clear that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 hence, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant Nos. 3 to
6. With this I answer this issue partly in the affirmative.
28. Issue No.4 : Inview of the discussion made on Issue No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed partly.
Consequently, the defendant Nos.1 and 2, are hereby restrained, by order of permanent injunction, from acting as the office bearers of the plaintiff union and from using 26 O.S.No.25196/2014 the name and registration number of plaintiff union.
The suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of mandatory injunction, sought against the defendant Nos.3 to 6, is hereby dismissed.
No orders as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Typist directly on computer system, computerized by her, after online correction by me, printout taken by her and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of November, 2019).
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff's side:
PW1: Venkataramanappa List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side: 27 O.S.No.25196/2014 Ex.P.1: C/C of the byelaws of the plaintiff's union dated 29.03.2012 Ex.P.2: C/C of the new byelaws of the plaintiff's union dated 14.06.2015 Ex.P.3: C/C of the members list of the plaintiff's union and members list Ex.P.4: Original copy of the members list of plaintiff's union dated18.03.2014 Ex.P.5: Copy of the police complaint lodged by the plaintiff's union Ex.P.6: Office copy of the suspension order of defendant No.1 from the plaintiff union addressed to the Managing Director, BMTC dt. 25.02.2012 Ex.P.7: Original hand bill and invitations regarding celebrations of certain functions arranged by the plaintiff union Ex.P.8: Photographs pertaining to the functions held by the plaintiff's union along with C.D. Ex.P.9: C/C of the order sheet in O.S.No. 25901/2012 Ex.P.10: C/C of the plaint in O.S.No. 25901/21012 Ex.P.11: C/C of the IA No.1 in O.S.No. 25901/2012 Ex.P.12: C/C of the order passed on IA No.1 in O.S.No. 25901/2012 Ex.P.13: C/C of the order sheet in O.S.No. 26509/2013 28 O.S.No.25196/2014 Ex.P.14: C/C of the plaint in O.S.No. 26509/2013 Ex.P.15: C/C of the orders passed on IA No.1 in O.S.No. 26509/2013 List of witness examined for the defendant side: Nil List of documents exhibited for the defendant's side: Nil (Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru.(CCH74) 29 O.S.No.25196/2014