ANTONY Vs. LUKKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A miscellaneous petition was filed in this Court on May 20,1960,seeking an interim injunction.The petitioner therein claimed that he was the Secretary of an Association,which had been registered under the Travancore Companies Act,the object of the Association having been described in detail in the Memorandum,out of which uplift of agriculturists being one of the objects.The petitioner has also stated that the President of the association was appointed in 1958 for a term of six months by the central committee,but that was without consulting or placing the matter before the central committee or the general body.The next important allegations are that certain deputations were sent to Delhi,to make representations against the land policy of the Kerala Government,that differences of opinion arose between the President and some members of the Association concerning taking out deputations without the matter being placed before the general body,as well as for allowing amounts for the purpose,and that the President had not rendered the accounts for the amounts spent in connection with the deputations.The petition further alleges that,though the President has managed to.get the office records and the accounts of the Association,the Secretary of the Association is entitled to the possession of the records,and that,notwithstanding demands,the records have not been returned.The immediate cause for filing the petition,is stated to be that the President,to get the disputed items of accounts included in the accounts of the Association,has issued a notice for the Association's 23rd annual meeting,and fixed it for May 24,1960;that the President has no right to convene the meeting,which must be by the Secretary of the Association;that the managing board was subject to the control of the central committee;that the central committee as well as the general body meeting are to be convened by the Secretary,and the President has no right to convene it.The ground for filing the petition in this Court,is that the term of office of the President has expired,that he is not competent to convene the meeting even as the President of the Association,and that this Court can alone issue an injunction,because,the court,which has the jurisdiction to make the proper order,was closed for the summer vacation,and would open on Monday,May 23,1960.This petition was accompanied by a plaint,seeking a relief of injunction against the two defendants,the first being the Association,and the second the President.The plaint is for the Munsiff's Court,Alleppey,and the petition for interim injunction to this Court,is to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 19(2)of the Kerala Civil Courts Act,Act No.1 of 1957,which reads thus: - - "During the adjournment of a Civil court,the High Court shall have the power to make provisional orders in all urgent matters and for such purpose to receive appeals,plaints and petitions which would ordinarily be presented to such civil court and any such order shall remain force only until the matter has been heard and decided by the court having jurisdiction " ;. The petition was during the summer vacation,and the learned vacation Judge,on May 20,1960,made the following order: "Interim injunction from holding the meeting for two weeks.Notice returnable within 10 days " ;. The 2nd respondent to this petition has filed a counter petition today i.e .,May 23,1960,and,as there was no sitting of this Court yesterday,the counter petition has been posted before us for proper directions.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the merits of the request to vacate the order of interim injunction,the petitioner's advocate has raised the objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to vary the provisional order passed in exercise of the powers under Section 19(2 ),once the Court having the jurisdiction to make necessary orders,reopens.He urged that the consequence of presenting the plaint in this Court,because of the lower court being closed for the vacation,is that the document is sent by the High Court to the proper court,and the provisional order passed by this Court remains operative till the order is made by the Court,which has the jurisdiction to pass it.In this case,the defendants respondents are placed under an obvious difficulty,for the meeting is notified to be held for tomorrow,and by no conceivable effort on their part can they invoke the jurisdiction of the Alleppey Court to get the interim order of injunction by this Court vacated.This morning,we asked the learned advocate for the petitioner whether he would undertake to appear in the Alleppey Court today,should the defendant Association be directed to rush to the Alleppey Court for purpose of getting necessary modifications;but the Advocate expressed his inability,and agreed to argue the legal aspects at 2.30 P.M.His argument is that in no circumstances this Court has now jurisdiction to vary the provisional order,once the Court vested with the jurisdiction,reopens.The argument proceeds on the wording of Section 19 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act;but we do not think those words divest this Court of the jurisdiction of preventing its process being abused to prejudice anybody.The maxim is well settled that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man,and,if we feel that a person is wrongly taking advantage of an order of this Court,we have always the inherent jurisdiction,to adjust the order with a view to fairly administer justice.We think this is a fit case in which that jurisdiction is to be exercised,for the counter petitioner in the petition for vacating the order of interim injunction,has averred something,which the advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to challenge.It is stated,there is fear of a penal action under the Companies Act due to not holding the annual meeting,that the Registrar of Companies has formally extended the time till May 30,1960,that the committee has unanimously authorised the President to convene the meeting by a resolution,that along with the annual meeting,a public meeting has also been notified,and that all arrangements had been completed for about 2000 members of the company to attend the annual general meeting.The fact is also obvious that a petition for injunction could be filed earlier had the Secretary really apprehended any irreparable damage being caused to himself.In these circumstances,we think this is a fit case where the order of interim injunction made on May 20,1960,should be vacated.