PL.THENAPPAN Vs. S.THANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.6567 of 2012 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for declaration that the Extra-ordinary/Special General Body Meeting of the Tamil Film Producers Council called for on 28.10.2012 for the purpose of passing a no confidence motion is illegal and for permanent injunction restraining respondents 2 to 9 herein from conducting the Extra-ordinary /Special General Body Meeting of the Tamil Film Producers Council either on 28.10.2012 or on any other subsequent dates. In that suit, the first respondent herein also filed application in I.A.No.15857 of 2012 for ad interim injunction and that was granted by order dated 17.10.2012. That order was challenged by respondents 2 to 9 herein who are the defendants in the suit by filing C.R.P.PD No.3991 of 2012 and that petition was allowed. While allowing the revision, the learned Judge appointed Mr.Justice E.Padmanabhan, Former Judge of this court to preside over the Extra-ordinary/Special General Body Meeting and directed the learned Former Judge Mr.Justice E.Padmanabhan to conduct the meeting as per the agenda. The meeting was conducted and a report was filed by the Former Judge Mr.Justice E.Padmanabhan and after hearing the objections filed by the first respondent and after hearing the arguments of both side, the learned XI Assistant Judge passed an order on 15.11.2012, fixing the date 20.11.2012 for opening of ballot boxes and counting of votes in the presence of Justice E.Padmanabhan and counsel for both sides with proper media coverage and also directed the City Commissioner of Police to provide proper police protection. This order dated 15.11.2012 is challenged by the revision petitioner who is a third party to the suit, in this revision after getting necessary permission from this court.

(2.) WHEN the above revision was posted for arguments, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.S.Raman appearing for the revision petitioner informed this court that the first respondent/plaintiff filed S.L.P. before the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.35135 of 2012 and that matter was about to be listed on 22.11.2012 before the Honourable Supreme Court and therefore, submitted that depending upon the result of the S.L.P., the parties may be directed to submit their arguments. As all the parties agreed, the matter was adjourned and the Honourable Supreme Court passed an order on 22.11.2012 in the above S.L.P., as follows:-

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the validity of the requisition which was also directed to be looked into by the Honourable Supreme Court relates to the power of the members to call for Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting and submitted that as per the bye-laws of the Council, a regular producer is any Individual/Concern/Firm/Company represented by himself or a person who has already produced and censored a Tamil straight picture as per bye law (3(e)) and only a regular producer can be a member and on being admitted as member of the Council, a certificate of membership alongwith ID Card shall be issued to the regular producer which contains the registration number, date, validity and category to which the member has been admitted and only on production of such identity cards, the members will be allowed to participate in the General Body Meeting or Special General Body Meeting to exercise the rights of vote in the elections for the office bearer and the Executive Committee. He, therefore, submitted that there is no proof that the persons who gave requisition for convening Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting are entitled to call for such Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting and in the absence of any proof that they can call for Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting, the convening of the meeting itself has no validity and that was also not properly appreciated by the courts while granting the relief. He further submitted that there was no proof that regular producers have voted in the Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting that was held by the order of this court in C.R.P. PD No.3931 of 2012 and in the absence of proof that regular producers have participated in the Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting convened on 28.10.2012, it cannot be said to be legally valid. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per the Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting, the meeting was scheduled to be held on 28.10.2012 and the XI Assistant Judge passed an order of ad interim injunction on 17.10.2012 restraining the convening of the Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting and that order was set aside by this court in C.R.P. PD No.3991 of 2012 only on 25.10.2012 and this court directed the conduct of the Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting as scheduled on 28.10.2012 and therefore, only three days were left and having regard to the earlier order passed by the XI Assistant Judge restraining the convening of the meeting, most of the members who are having residence and office outside Tamil Nadu and far away from the City of Chennai could not have made arrangements to attend the Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting convened on 28.10.2012 and therefore, if for any reason, this court comes to the conclusion that the convening of the Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting is legal, valid, then sufficient opportunity must be given to the members to participate and exercise their vote in the Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting to express their views on the no confidence motion.