P N RATHINA KUMAR Vs. S SUKUMAR TREASURER AVC EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE 184/1 VENKATESWARA NAGAR SENTHANKUDI MAYILADUTHURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a common order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, the Scheme Court, Mayiladuthurai, made in E.A.Nos.1 and 3 of 2007 in O.S.No.234 of 1994, a scheme suit.

(2.) THOSE two execution applications came to be filed by the first respondent namely S.Sukumar, for declaration that the resolution of no confidence motion in respect of the President, Secretary and Treasurer passed in the meeting that was convened and held on 12.2.2007, and the entire proceedings of the meeting held on 28.2.2007, pursuant to which the revision petitioner and two others were appointed as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Educational Committee respectively, are illegal and bad in law.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel would further add that the Principal in-charge convened a meeting on 28.2.2007; that in that meeting, the revision petitioner Rathinakumar was elected as President, Sajjal as Secretary and Maruthavanan as Treasurer; that in order to fill up the vacancy which arose in respect of the post of President and Secretary, that was to be done; that if not done, the further proceedings of the entire committee would become a standstill; and that under the circumstances, it was done so. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case, neither any fault could be found, nor the resolution passed on 12.2.2007 could be stated in any way as defective or infirm in the eye of law; that it was an Annual General Body Meeting; that 7 were present; that 1 was vacant; that out of 7, the President has opposed; that out of the remaining 6, 2 abstained from voting, and 4 have supported; that once it has been passed procedurally, it cannot be stated to be in any way against law or illegal; but, the lower Court while considering all the aspects of the matter and finding that originally there was a refusal on the part of the President, which was not correct, has taken an erroneous view that there was no consent by the President to bring the matter as an urgent one on that day; that naturally one could not expect that the President against whom no confidence motion was to be made, would give consent for such a resolution to be done; that following the same, another meeting was held on 28.2.2007 in which these persons were elected as President, Secretary and Treasurer procedurally following the Rules framed by the Scheme Court; and that under the circumstances, the order of the lower Court has got to be set aside.