THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR OA Nos.455 & 456 of 2026 and A Nos.1036 & 2130 of 2026 and OA Nos.183 to 185 of 2024 in CS No. 54 of 2024 1. M.A.M.R. Muthiah Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028. 2. Geetha Muthiah Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
OA Nos.455 & 456 of 2026 and
A Nos.1036 & 2130 of 2026 and
OA Nos.183 to 185 of 2024 in
CS No. 54 of 2024
1. M.A.M.R. Muthiah
Chettinad House,
Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
2. Geetha Muthiah
Chettinad House,
Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
3. V.Palaniappan
S/o.SP.Vellappan, Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalapuram, Chennai 600 028.
4. V.Chandramoleeswaran
No.886/E, Kambar Colony,
Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 040.
5. S.Hariharan
Shrushti Apartment,
Flat B, No.77, Natarajan Street, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.
6. V.Valliammai
A3/23, Tristar Residency, Mogappair West, Chennai 600 037.
7. TR.Meyyappan
No.209, B-1 Krishnamachari Nagar Main Road, Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087.
..Applicant(s) in all the applications
Vs
1. Kumara Rajah Muthiah School of Traditional
Arts and Crafts
Represented by its erstwhile Secretary
Mrs.Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah, Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
2. Mrs.Kumar Rani Meena Muthiah
W/o.Late Kumararaja M.A.M.Muthiah Chettiar,
3. Mr.AR.Ramaswamy
Member, Kumara Rajah Muthiah school of Traditional Arts and Crafts.
4. Mr.Vijay Reddy
Member-Kumara Raja Muthiah School of Traditional Arts and Crafts.
5. Mrs.Preetha Vijay Reddy
Member-Kumara Raja Muthiah School of
6. Mr.M.A.M.M.Annamalai
Member-Kumara Raja Muthiah School of
7. Mr.V.Jayaraman
No.131, Chamiers Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 8,
8. P.V.Madhavi
No.7, Valmiki Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
9. Mr.KTR Raja Karuppan Chetty No.3-A, Damodharapuram Main Road, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.
10.Mrs.Meenakshi Annamalai Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
11.Mr.V.Ravi Kumar
No.46, Kuya Aruna Giri 1st Street, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
12.Manimekalai
No.2/64B, II Main Road, River View Colony, Manapakkam, Chennai 600 116.
13.Selvi
M43/2, Cosmpolitan Colony, West Avenue, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.
14.Mr.V.Ramoo
Kalakshetra Road,
Flat-C, Vijayashanthi Apartments, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.
15.Mr.M.Meyyappan
No.134-E, Aani Street,
Chinmaya Nagar, Stage 2, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092.
16.Mr.NK.Raman
No.125A, 5th Street, AVM Colony, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092.
17.Mr.S.V.N.Natrajan
No.9/24, 10th Cross Street,
Lakshmi Nagar, Porur, Chennai 600 116.
18.Mr.M.Thenappan
No.90, Rama Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
19.Mr.S.Chockalingam
No.9, Kollangudiar Street, Pasumadathar House, Devakottai.
20.Mr.AN.Chidambaram
No.9/39, NSTAN House, Melakatiam 2nd Street, Virachilai, Pudukotti 622 412.
21.Mr.C.Chockalingam
No.5/3C-1, AVM Avenue, Second Main Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092.
22.Mr.ARL Arunachalam
Flat GA, KG Woods, Old No.48/1, New No.64, 3rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.
23.Mr.A.Sathappan
Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
24.Mr.Muthu Manickam
AP 556, 17th Street,
4th Sector, K.K.Nagar, Chennai.
25.Mr.V.Manickam
Jayam Villa Flat No.4, 1st Floor, No.26/20, R K Nagar, 3rd Cross Street, RA Puram, Chennai 600 028.
26.Mr.Lakshmanan
G-2, Paru Apartments,
Essappa Chettiar Street, Vivesapuram, Karaikudi.
27.Mr.T.Kanagasabai No.6-B, Ramachandra Iyer Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
28.Mr.M.Vellayan
No.177 E, Sir.C.V.Road,
Alwarthirunagar, Chennai
29.Mr.Praveen
Dharapuram Road, Tiruppur
30.Mr.Ramanathan Sai Sarovar Apartments, No.3-B, 100 Feet Road, Velacherry, Chennai.
31.Mr.Ravi Shankar
A-1 B Block, Appasamy Springs Apts, Rajaji Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.
32.Mr.Raja
Center Point 348/221 222, Lloyds Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai.
33.Mr.Vaithiya Nathan No.2/35, Main Street, Palagapuri, Keelacheval Post, Pudukottai District.
34.Mr.S.Krishnan
No.12/56, 3rd Main Road,
Venkatesh Nagar Extn-2,
Virugambakkam, Chennai
35.Mr.V.Josephine Jothi
C-12, Chettinad Staff,
Quarters Rajah Annamalaipuram,
Chennai
36.Mr.R.K.Karuppiah
3A, Damodarapuram Main Road, Adyar, Chennai
37.Mr.N.Ramakrishnan
Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
38.Mr.Alagappan, Godrej Tyson Foods Ltd, Rameshevara Village, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore.
39.Mr.L.Lakshmanan
Bhava Nadhiar Street, Sri Vihar Apts Block 3, Ground Floor, Ramarajapuram, Chennai.
40.Mr.Chidambaram
No.29/14, Shanmugaraja Street, Gandhi Nagar, Ekattuthangal, Chennai 32.
41.Mr.Narayanan
9th Majith Road 1st Cross Street, Sivanangai.
42.Mr.R.M.Ramanathan, No.37, JAwakar Street, Adivaram, Palani.
43.Mr.S.Ganesan, Mo.13, Sabari Apartments, West Vanniyar Street,
West K.K.Nagar, Chennai 78.
44.The District Registrar of Societies Chennai Central, Chennai 14.
..Respondent(s) in all the applications OA No. 455 of 2026
Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of Interim Injunction restraining the 9th to 43rd Respondents or any their men, agent, representatives or person or persons claiming through them from conducting the Managing Committee Meeting scheduled on 15/05/2026, pending disposal of the present suit.
OA No. 456 of 2026
Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the 9th and 21st Respondent, or their men, agent, representatives, or person or persons claiming through them, from interfering into the day to day affairs, control, management and financial transactions of the 1st Respondent Society and of the Chettinad Vidhyasharam School, pending disposal of the present suit.
A No. 1036 of 2026
Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent to furnish/produce all records, log book/minutes of meetings balance sheets from 2014 financial year to till dated, other financial documents including vouchers, bills, clearances and statutory filings pertaining to the management, administration and control of the 1st Respondent society from the year 2014 onwards .
A No. 2130 of 2026
Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of interim direction to the 44th Respondent to take interim control of the management and affairs of the 1st Respondent Society and oversee the affairs and management by appointing a Special Officer as contemplated under the relevant act till the disposal f the present application. OA No. 183 of 2024
Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of Ad Interim Injunction restraining the Respondents 9 to 43 from acting as the members of the 1st Respondent Society, pending disposal of the above suit.
OA No. 184 of 2024
Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of Ad Interim Injunction restraining the Respondents 1 and 2 or any other persons or agents acting on their behalf inducting new members into the 1st Respondent Society, pending disposal of the above suit. OA No. 185 of 2024
Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of grant Ad Interim Injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent in capacity as Secretary of the 1st Respondent Society, pending disposal of the above suit.
For Applicant(s): Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Balaji (1st Applicant )
Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Praveen Kumar (For Applicants 2 & 3)
Mr.J.Ravindran, Senior Counsel
(for 4th Applicant)
Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj (for 5th Applicant)
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.R.Ramesh Kumar
(for Defendants 1, 2, 7, 8 & 9)
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel
(for 6th Respondent/Defendant)
Mr.Srinivas, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Adaikappan (for R36)
Ms.S.P.Arthi (for R4 & R5/Defendants 4 & 5)
Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar
(for Defendants 14 to 23, 26 & 40)
Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Senior counsel for Mr.G.Mohanakrishnan
(for Defendnats 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39 41, 42)
Mr.N.Jothi, Senior counsel for Mr.Mohan Jawahar (for 25th Defendant) Mr.G.Venkateswarulu (for 27th Defendant)
Ms.B.Thamayanthi (for 28th Defendant)
Mr.K.Arunkumar (for 30th Defendant)
Mr.K.Prabhakaran (for 31st Defendant)
Mr.S.Rajendrakumar (for Defendants 11, 12 & 13)
COMMON ORDER
O.A.Nos.455 & 456 of 2026 have been filed challenging the notice issued by R9 & R21.
2.A.No.2130 of 2026 has been filed seeking an order of interim direction to the 44th Respondent to take interim control of the management and affairs of the 1st Respondent Society and oversee the affairs and management by appointing a Special Officer.
3.Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st Applicant, referred to the letter dated 07.05.2026, signed by Respondents 9 and
21, which is under challenge in the present proceedings. The said notice, titled
“Requisition-cum-Notice of Managing Committee Meeting,” was addressed to Ms.Preetha Vijayakumar Reddy, Vice President, concerning the meeting proposed to be convened following the demise of Kumararani Dr. Meena Muthiah, Secretary of Kumara Rajah Muthiah School of Traditional Arts & Crafts, who passed away on 02.05.2026, to fill up the vacancy of Secretary and to restore the normal functioning with the following agendas:
“1. To record with deepest sorrow the passing away of Kumararani Dr. Meena Muthiah, Secretary of the Society.
2. To elect a new Secretary of the Managing Committee under Bye Law 14.
3. To consider the resignation letter dated 03.04.2026 submitted by Ms. P.V. Madhavi, Treasurer and Committee Member, and to take appropriate decision thereon.
4. To elect a new Treasurer under Bye Law 14, consequent to the acceptance of the resignation of Ms. P.V. Madhavi
5. To authorise the new Secretary and Treasurer as signatories to the Society’s bank accounts under Bye Law 25.
6. To authorise filing of change of office bearers with the Registrar of Societies under Bye Law 32.
7. Any other matter with the permission of the Chair.”
The meeting was fixed pursuant to the clause 14 of the Bye Law and pursuant to the resignation of Ms.P.V.Madhavi, Treasurer of the Society.
4.The learned Senior Counsel further invited the attention of this Court to
the Bye laws of the Society, specifically Clauses 22, 23 and 26, which are extracted hereunder:
22.there shall be a meeting of the Managing Committee as often as necessary and in any event on requisition in writing by at least two members of the Managing Committee.
23.The Secretary shall convene meeting of the Managing Committee.
26.Seven clear days’ notice in writing shall be given of the meetings of the Managing Committee and such notice shall be sent by the Secretary by ordinary post to the last known address of the member of Managing Committee in the register and the entry in the register kept for purpose of the despatch of the notices as foresaid shall be conclusive proof of their having been so despatched.”
By referring to Clause 22, he submitted that a meeting of the Managing Committee can be convened only upon a written request made by two members of the Managing Committee. Upon receipt of such requests, the Secretary is required to convene the meeting of the Managing Committee. He further pointed out that as per Clause 26, a seven clear days’ notice in writing must be issued to the members of the Managing Committee, and such notice shall be signed and sent only by the Secretary through ordinary post.
5.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the notice dated 07.05.2026 stated that the meeting of the Managing Committee would be held on 15.05.2026. He contended that the requirement of seven clear days notice must be reckoned not from the date of the notice, but from the date of receipt of the notice by the members concerned.
6.He further submitted that the notice, which is titled as a “Requisitioncum-Notice for Managing Committee Meeting,” is contrary to the Bye laws of the Society. Referring to Bye law 22, he pointed out that if there shall be a meeting of the Managing Committee there must be two separate requisitions in writing shall be addressed to the Secretary seeking convening of the meeting by atleast two members of the Managing Committee. However, in the present case, the meeting was convened by Respondent Nos. 9 and 21, of whom Respondent No.9 is stated to be the Vice President and Respondent No. 21 is a member of the Managing Committee. In the absence of such requisition particularly in view of the demise of the Secretary, the impugned notice itself is defective and consequently illegal.
7.The learned Senior Counsel further contended that since the Secretary
had passed away on 02.05.2026, the only course available under law was to convene a General Body Meeting. According to him, the entire General Body ought to have been convened and only through such General Body Meeting members could be elected or selected to the posts of Secretary, Treasurer and other Committee Members. In the absence of any General Body Meeting, any decision proposed to be taken pursuant to the notice dated 07.05.2026 cannot be treated as legally valid. Therefore, based on the above said contentions, the Applicant sought grant of injunction.
8.Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Applicants 2 and 3, submitted that the signatories to the subject notice have not disclosed the capacity or authority under which they signed the document and convened the meeting. He further submitted that C.S. No.54 of 2024 has a chequered history concerning disputes between the plaintiffs and defendants relating to the administration of the affairs of the Society, under which the present school management has been functioning.
9.The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the plaintiffs were removed under mysterious circumstances, which action was challenged before the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar, by an order, held that the applicants would continue to remain members of the Society. Challenging the said order, the defendants filed W.P. No.19742 of 2019, wherein this Court, by order dated 28.10.2021, passed the following order:
“32. Applying the aforesaid observation herein, the second respondent while appreciating the correctness of the particulars submitted in Form VII, concluded that there was no proof to show that the private respondents were expelled from their primary membership after following the established procedures as contemplated under law. In view of the same, it is implied that the second respondent has refused to accept the Form VII submitted by the petitioner and therefore, the natural corollary would be to hold that the private respondents are to be treated as continuing members of the petitioner society.”
10.The said order was thereafter challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.3142 of 2021. The learned Senior Counsel further referred to Form VI, wherein the name of one Mr. M.A.M.M. Annamalai finds place. According to the particulars contained in Form VI, the date of registration is shown as 31.10.1979. Respondent No.9 is shown at Serial No.14, wherein his occupation is described as “employed,” and his date of enrolment as a member is stated to be 09.01.2014. He referring to the said Form, states that the Society not only comprises with family members, but also with certain private individuals.
11.He further contended that Respondent Nos.9 to 43 were inducted under mysterious circumstances, and such induction itself is under challenge and clouded with serious disputes. According to him, the said members are closely associated with some of the defendants and are nothing but “yes men.” He submitted that there was no flaming hurry to convene the impugned meeting immediately after the demise of the Secretary, particularly without issuing the mandatory seven clear days’ notice contemplated under the Bye laws and without serving notice on all concerned persons.
12.He further argued that, having regard to Form VI, after the demise of the Secretary, any meeting could have been convened only by the President and not by Respondent Nos.9 and 21. Therefore, the impugned notice is per se illegal and bad in the eye of law. He also drew the attention of this Court to paragraphs 9 and 13 of the applicants’ affidavit, wherein reference has been made to the filing of W.P. No.19742 of 2019 and W.A. No.3142 of 2021, and contended that the impugned action is not in accordance with law. Consequently, according to him, the impugned communication cannot be treated as a valid notice under Clauses 22 and 23 of the Bye laws.
13.Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th Applicant, while addressing arguments in A. No.456 of 2026 seeking injunction and A. No.455 of 2026 seeking to restrain the conduct of the meeting, primarily contended that, in view of the induction of Respondent Nos.9 to 43, whose membership itself is under a cloud, there exists every possibility of those respondents influencing and controlling the proceedings of the proposed meeting. Therefore, according to him, they ought not to be permitted to participate in the meeting.
14.In support of his submissions, he referred to the order passed by this
Court dated 08.07.2024, wherein this Court observed as follows:
“2. The suit has been filed challenging the induction of certain members namely the defendants 9 to 43. This Court is of the view that till the counter is filed and the matter is heard, there shall be no addition of new members. Hence, respondents are restrained from inducting any new members pending these applications.”
By the said order, this Court restrained the respondents therein from inducting any new members pending disposal of the applications.
15.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, when the said applications are still pending before this Court, convening the proposed meeting would be per se contrary to the order passed by this Court. Even on that ground, according to him, the meeting cannot be convened, as it would be in violation of the orders of this Court dated 08.03.2024.
16.He further submitted that A. No.2130 of 2026 has been filed seeking appointment of a Special Officer under the relevant provisions of law to administer the affairs of the Society, since the administration cannot come to a standstill after the demise of the Secretary. According to him, the Secretary is the person empowered to manage the day-to-day affairs of the school, including financial decisions. In the absence of any specific Bye law providing a mechanism to fill up the vacancy caused by the demise of the Secretary, and considering that the institution is an educational institution which cannot function without proper administration, he submitted that a Special Officer ought to be appointed, either from the office of the Registrar of Societies, or a retired Judge of this Court, or any other person possessing the requisite administrative knowledge and experience.
17.Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel appearing for the 5th Applicant, submitted that there are no proceedings or records produced to establish that Respondent No.9 was duly appointed, elected or selected as the Vice President of the Society. According to him, the mere description of Respondent No.9 as “Vice-President” in some documents would not suffice to prove that he was legally holding such post. In the absence of any material demonstrating that Respondent No.9 had assumed the post of Vice-President through a legally recognised process, the designation shown against his name is a misnomer.
18.The learned counsel further contended that the impugned notice had been issued on a letterhead which itself appears to be suspicious and unauthenticated. He submitted that the said letterhead cannot be relied upon, particularly in view of the fact that the Secretary is no more and the Treasurer has already resigned from the office. According to him, these surrounding circumstances cast serious doubt on the genuineness and authenticity of the impugned communication and the letterhead on which it was issued.
19.He further reiterated that this Court ought to appoint an appropriate person to discharge the functions of the Secretary and oversee the administration of the affairs of the Society until a General Body Meeting is convened in the manner known to law and fresh elections are conducted for the posts of Secretary and Treasurer. According to him, only the General Body is competent to elect the members of the Managing Committee, and thereafter only the Managing Committee can administer the affairs of the Society. The persons presently claiming to be members of the Managing Committee, according to him, cannot take any decision in the absence of a duly functioning Secretary. Therefore, he contended that the General Body alone is the competent forum to elect new Committee Members, Secretary and Treasurer, and thereafter the day-to-day affairs of the Society can be administered in accordance with the Bye laws.
20.Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th defendant, submitted that he was neither supporting the plaintiffs nor the defendants, and that he was appearing as a neutral party in the dispute. He submitted that the 6th defendant is the undisputed adopted son of the deceased concerned. Referring to Form VI, he pointed out that Mr.M.A.M.M.Annamalai was enrolled as a founder member on 28.09.1998 and that his name finds place at Serial No.6.
21.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, to the shock and surprise of the members, the Secretary had passed an order treating the following persons as outgoing members of the Society:
1. Mr. M.A.R. Muthiah
2. Mrs. Geetha Muthiah
3. Mr. M.A.M.M. Annamalai
The said deletion was challenged before the registration authorities, which ultimately became the subject matter of the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal. The Division Bench of this Court, according to him, directed that the dispute between the parties should be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court and accordingly relegated the parties to work out their remedies before the Civil Court.
22.The learned Senior Counsel further contended that, when the deletion of the above members was questioned, the District Registrar held that the outgoing members were entitled to continue as members of the Society. He further submitted that, under clause15, only the General Body is empowered to elect the members of the Managing Committee. For convening a General Body Meeting, a proper notice providing seven clear days’ time must be issued to the members, and only after expiry of the said completed period of notice can such meeting be validly convened.
23.He further submitted that the induction of Respondent Nos.9 to 43 is itself doubtful and forms the subject matter of the suit. According to him, the cloud over their membership can be cleared only after a full fledged trial. Therefore, until such adjudication, Respondent Nos.9 to 43 ought not to be permitted to participate in the proposed meeting scheduled to be held on 15.05.2026 pursuant to the notice dated 07.05.2026.
24.Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Defendants 1, 2 and 7 to 9, submitted that the dispute in question is not a mere family dispute, but relates to a Society registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, which administers an educational institution imparting education with utmost sincerity and care, particularly in matters relating to admissions. He submitted that the admission process is imminent and would commence within the next few days, and therefore, unless the proposed meeting is convened and the members of the Managing Committee participate therein, no effective decision can be taken for selection of a new Secretary and Treasurer, especially in view of the resignation tendered by the Treasurer.
25.The learned Senior Counsel referred to the prayers sought for in the suit as well as the cause of action pleaded therein, and contended that even in
O.A. Nos.183 to 185, similar interim reliefs had been sought before this Court. According to him, having failed to secure such reliefs earlier, the applicants have now filed the present applications seeking substantially the very same relief of injunction, which is per se impermissible in law.
26.He further contended that, under Section 14(4) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, the Secretary alone is the competent authority empowered to discharge the statutory functions of the institution. In this regard, he referred to Clauses 14, 16 and 18 of the Bye laws, which are extracted hereunder:
“14 The Members of the Managing Committee shall not be less than 5 and shall not be ( more than 10 at any time. The Managing Committee shall elect a President; two Vice-Presidents and also a secretary and a Treasurer.
16. Notwithstanding any vacancy in the Managing Committee, the remaining members shall function as a full Managing Committee.
18. The decision of the Managing Committee on any question regarding administration of the Society shall be final.”
Referring specifically to Clause 16, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that, even if any vacancy arises in respect of a Committee Member, the remaining members of the Managing Committee shall continue to function as a fullfledged Managing Committee. He further submitted that, under Clause 18, the existing Managing Committee is empowered to take decisions concerning the affairs of the Society which stands final. According to him, the Society cannot be allowed to come to a standstill merely because of the sudden demise of the Secretary or the resignation of certain office bearers. In the present case, the Treasurer herself had tendered her resignation. Therefore, according to him, the proposed meeting is necessary to ensure continuity in administration, and there is no illegality in the notice issued and signed by Respondent Nos.9 and 21.
27.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, unless the
Managing Committee is permitted to administer the day-to-day affairs and financial matters of the institution, the functioning of the Society would come to a complete standstill. He also contended that there is nothing improper or illegal in convening a meeting immediately after the demise of the Secretary, particularly when urgent administrative decisions are required to be taken in the interest of the institution.
28.He further submitted that the affairs of the Society are governed entirely by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, and in view of Section 20(1) of the said Act, this Court cannot appoint an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Society. He also contended that any decision taken by the Managing Committee can subsequently be ratified in accordance with law.
29.Ms.S.P.Arthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 4 and 5/Defendants 4 and 5, submitted that the impugned notice was received by them only on 09.05.2026. According to her, under the Bye laws, there must be seven clear days between the date of receipt of the notice and the date fixed for the meeting. To substantiate the same, she has filed a typed set of papers in which postal tracking sheet has been enclosed, which reflects that post was delivered on 09.05.2026. In the present case, there is no clear seven days’ interval between the date of receipt of the notice and the proposed date of meeting.
30.The primary contention of Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Defendants 14 to 23, 26 and 40, is that he reserves his right to file a detailed counter affidavit. He submitted that the averments made in paragraphs 9, 13, 14 and 15 of the affidavit filed by the applicants are factually incorrect and contrary to the records.
31.According to the learned Senior Counsel, Respondent Nos.9 to 43 have been members of the Society since the year 2014, and their membership has neither been disturbed nor their induction ever challenged at any point of time. He further contended that the present applications have been filed only with an intention to thwart the appointment to the posts of Secretary and Treasurer.
32.He further submitted that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicants. According to him, if an interim order is granted and the posts of Secretary and Treasurer are not filled in the ensuing Managing Committee meeting scheduled to be held on 15.05.2026, irreparable loss and prejudice would be caused to the respondents, as the entire administration and management of the Society would come to a standstill.
33.The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Society comprises totally 46 members, out of whom 36 members are stated to be active, and five members constitute the Managing Committee. Invoking the doctrine of necessity, he submitted that there is a pressing necessity to convene the meeting, for which a clear agenda has already been set out in the impugned notice itself.
34.By referring to Clauses 10 and 11 of the Bye laws, the learned senior counsel further contended that the Managing Committee is empowered to admit or remove any person as a member of the Society. He submitted that Respondent Nos.9 to 43 have been duly admitted as members, and in the absence of any specific order of restraint passed by this Court, their participation in the meeting as members cannot be questioned by the applicants.
35.Mr.Prabakaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Defendants 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42, submitted that, as per Clause 24 of the Bye laws, in an extraordinary situation arising due to the demise of the Secretary and the resignation of the Treasurer, it becomes incumbent upon the existing members of the Managing Committee to convene a meeting for electing a Secretary and filling up the vacancy of the Treasurer. He further referred to O.A. No.183 of 2024, which is an application for injunction, and submitted that this Court did not grant any interim order therein. According to him, having failed to obtain relief in O.A. No.183 of 2024, the applicants have now couched the same relief in O.A. No.455 of 2026, which is impermissible in law.
36.He also relied upon the order passed by the District Registrar, which is extracted hereunder:
“1.5. As regards the request of the complainants to the Registrar
“TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY ON THE MISMANAGEMENT AND
FINANCIAL IRREGULARITY COMMITTED BY
SMT.KUMARARANI MEENA MUTHIAH”, It is to be observed that it is very much obvious from the submission of the complainants themselves, that they are unaware of the happenings of the Society since 02.12.2015. Whileso, It has to be construed that the request of the complainants to hold an enquiry on the mismanagement and the financial irregularity of the Society, is based on mere assumption and even prima facie, is devoid of any merit warranting action at this stage. Given the fact that this Registrar Is managing the records of several thousands of Societies, he cannot be expected to make a roving enquiry over such sweeping statements, instead only in the event of specific complaints, such enquiry would be viable.”
According to the learned Senior Counsel, the District Registrar has rendered a categorical finding, which remains unchallenged and undisputed.
37.Mr.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 36th respondent, submitted that as per Form VI, the name of Respondent No.9 is shown at Serial No.14 with the date of enrolment as 09.01.2014. He further submitted that allegations have been made that Respondent Nos.9 to 43 are employees under the 2nd respondent and are close associates of the Secretary. However, he contended that even assuming such allegations, once a person is admitted as a member of the Society, he continues to be a member irrespective of his employment or designation.
38.He further submitted that once a person becomes a member, he is fully entitled to participate in the General Body Meeting and, where applicable, to take part in the proceedings of the Managing Committee, and there can be no impediment based on social status or employment status. He referred to Sections 12, 26, 27 and 30 of the Societies Act, which deal with the convening and functioning of the General Body. According to him, in the present case, there is no compelling reason necessitating the convening of a General Body Meeting. In the absence of such exigent circumstances, the impugned notice cannot be termed as illegal or invalid in the eye of law.
39.He further referred to clauses 8, 10, 11, 16, 20 to 23 in the bye law, which are extracted here under:
“8. The Managing Committee shall sue or be sued in the name of the Society represented by the Secretary for the time being.
10. The Managing Committee shall have power to admit any person to be member of the Society, and no fee shall be collected from such persons for such admission.
11. The Managing Committee shall have power to remove any member of the society if in its opinion such member is an undesirable person and no appeal shall lie before any authority against such removal.
16. Notwithstanding any vacancy in the Managing Committee, the remaining members shall function as a full Managing Committee.
20. The Managing Committe may transact business whenever
necessary by circulation of papers.
21.The Managing Committee shall have the power to borrow with or without security to do all such acts as they may deem necessary for carrying out the objects of the Society as set forth in these rules.
22.there shall be a meeting of the Managing Committee as often as necessary and in any event on requisition in writing by at least two members of the Managing Committee.
23. The Secretary shall convene meeting of the Managing Committee.”
40.The learned senior counsel further contended that there is no impediment for the meeting to be go on and he pointed out that this court is not empowered to appoint an observer. The Managing Committee should be allowed to get along with the meeting. If there is a vaccum with regard to convene a meeting of general body, then who will be empowered to convene a meeting that has to be answered. He further pointed out that the 6th respondent was removed and the said removal was never challenged either in Writ Appeal or in any other proceedings.
41.The learned senior counsel by relying upon paragraph Nos.39 & 40 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 639 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and
another), contended that the doctrine of impossibility has to be considered. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY:
38. The Court has to consider and understand the scope of application of the doctrines of “lex non cogit ad impossibilia” (the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform); impossibilium nulla obligatio est” (the law does not expect a party to do the impossible); and impotentia excusat legem in the qualified sense that there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law or to forbear the prohibitory. These maxims are akin to the maxim of Roman Law Nemo Tenetur ad Impossibilia (no one is bound to do an impossibility) which is derived from common sense and natural equity and has been adopted and applied in law from time immemorial. Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like an act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. (Vide: Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3558; Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 3648; and Haryana Urban
Development Authority & Anr. v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 1491).”
42.Mr.N.Jothi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Defendants 25, 27,
28, 30 and 31, submitted that an educational institution is a forum established for imparting education to future generations and ought not to be exposed to rival claims among family members. He also referred to the community which had originally founded the institution. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the extraordinary situation warrants an extraordinary remedy. In this regard, he referred to the prayers sought in the Writ Petition, which are extracted hereunder:
“A.An order of interim direction directing the 1st, 3rd and 5th respondents to conduct an inquiry into the records, constitution, working and diversion of funds of the 7th Respondent Society by appointing a Special Officer as per Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the rules 1978 till the disposal of the Writ Petition.
B.An order of interim direction directing the 2nd and 4th respondent to consitute a school committee appointing reputed persons holding high public office to supervise and admnister the admission process and other functioning of the Society till the disposal of the Writ Petition”
43.The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the present proceedings amount to re-litigation and that the applicant, having already approached this Court earlier, is barred by the principles of estoppel and res judicata. On that basis, he questioned the maintainability of the present
application. He also drew the attention to the counter affidavit filed by 24th respondent, particularly paragraphs 13 and 19 to 23, which are extracted below:
“13.Thus, the very birth of the issue so as to term the Plaintiffs as Members of the Society itself is the core issue with no proper admission as members. The Committee Members have signed to admit them.
19.As on this date, thousands of young Students are studying in the School. They are all taken care of by Hundreds of Teaching Staff with ably assisted by administration with non-teaching staff. The basic and fundamentals are provided by other kind of staff. All of them are taken care apart from the day-to-day Management and other allied issues.
20 For all these purposes, the Secretary and the Managing Committee are responsible. As things could have the Treasurer P.V. Madhavi, who is 84 years, the basic financial related member, has resigned on 03.04.2026 for her personal reasons due to her age related issues.
21. The Secretary by name Mrs.Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah had her natural death on 02.05.2026 due to her advanced age at Ooty. Now, both Offices have to be filled-in. Hence, a Meeting is scheduled to be held on 15.05.2026 for fulfilling all the required aspects.
22. At this juncture, the Applicants/Plaintiffs, whose very authenticity of their Memberships is a questionable one, have filed the above Application to stall and freeze the entire Educational prospects of the Institution.
23. The very fact that they have admitted in the Affidavit that they came to know about the ensuing Meeting to be held on 15.05.2026 in a discreet manner amply proved that they are not the Members of the Society. The non-members of the Society have no locus standi to question the affairs of the society much less about the meeting to be held on 15.05.2026”
44.Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th defendant, in reply to the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsels, submitted that the injunction application filed along with the main suit had merely been adjourned and was neither dismissed nor finally disposed of. Therefore, according to him, the principles of estoppel and res judicata would not apply. He further submitted that, following the death of the Secretary, an emergent situation had arisen, necessitating the filing of the present application seeking injunction. With regard to the allegations made against Mr.Annamalai, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the mother had not disowned her son and, therefore, the legal rights of Mr. Annamalai remain intact and cannot be ousted merely on the basis of allegations levelled against him, particularly when no specific allegation has been made against him. He also pointed out that, as per Form VI, Mr.Annamalai is one of the founder members and that his membership cannot be questioned by anyone.
45.Heard all the respective counsel and perused the available records.
46.Though several issues have been raised by the respective learned counsels, at this preliminary stage the Court is concerned only with the notice issued by Respondents 9 and 21. Clause 22 of the Bye laws specifically stipulates that there must be a requisition in writing by two members of the Managing Committee. In the present case, admittedly, no such independent requisition letter has been issued by two members. Instead, the document in question is merely a letter signed by two individuals, one claiming to be the Vice-President and the other claiming to be a member of the Managing Committee.
47.Further, Clause 22 specifically requires “seven clear days’ notice.”
Such a requirement cannot be construed merely from the date mentioned in the notice, rather, it must be reckoned from the date on which the notice is actually received by the concerned members. It is the responsibility of the respondents to ensure that the notice is served upon the concerned persons at least seven clear days prior to the proposed meeting. The period of seven days must fully expire before the meeting can validly be convened.
48.In the absence of any material produced by the respondents to establish the actual receipt of notice by the committee members, it cannot be presumed that the requirement of seven clear days has been complied with merely on the basis of the date borne on the notice.
49.Insofar as the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 36th respondent with regard to the doctrine of impossibility are concerned, such a situation has not arisen at this stage in the present case.
50.A scrutiny of the document titled “Requisition-cum-Notice of Managing Committee Meeting” reveals that the Bye laws specifically require a written requisition letter to be placed before the Secretary. Since the Secretary is no more, due to her sudden demise, the proper course available under the circumstances would be to convene a General Body meeting by issuing due notice to all concerned parties. In view of the extraordinary situation created by the death of the Secretary and the resignation of the Treasurer, the only permissible method to convene a meeting would be through the General Body, which alone is competent to decide upon filling up the vacancies in the posts of Secretary and Treasurer. It is also the General Body which is empowered to elect or select the members of the Managing Committee.
51.In the present case, there was no such flaming hurry warranting deviation from the procedure prescribed under the Bye laws. The impugned letter signed by Respondents 9 and 21, in the opinion of this Court, is not in consonance with the Bye laws of the Society.
52.Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim injunction in
O.A.No.455 of 2026, restraining the respondents 9 to 43 from conducting the Managing Committee Meeting scheduled to be held on 15/05/2026, pending disposal of the suit. In O.A.No.456 of 2026, there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 9 and 21 from interfering with the day to day affairs, control, management and financial transactions of the 1st Respondent Society and of the Chettinad Vidhyasharam School, pending
disposal of the suit.
53.Insofar as A.No.2130 of 2026 is concerned, in view of the facts and circumstances, as this being an educational institution which needs day-to-day monitoring and administration, as the President of the Society having sufficient experience and knowledge in running the institution, will be a competent person to administer the Society. Therefore, the President viz., Mr.P.Vijaykumar Reddy, is hereby appointed as interim Administrator of the Society, until further orders.
54.The matter shall stand adjourned to 25.06.2026.
14-05-2026 sai
To
1. Kumara Rajah Muthiah School of Traditional Arts and Crafts
Represented by its erstwhile Secretary
Mrs.Kumara Rani Meena Muthiah, Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
2.Mrs.Kumar Rani Meena Muthiah
W/o.Late Kumararaja M.A.M.Muthiah Chettiar,
3.Mr.AR.Ramaswamy
Member, Kumara Rajah Muthiah school of Traditional Arts and Crafts.
4.Mr.Vijay Reddy
Member-Kumara Raja Muthiah School of Traditional Arts and Crafts.
5.Mrs.Preetha Vijay Reddy
Member-Kumara Raja Muthiah School of Traditional Arts and Crafts.
6.Mr.M.A.M.M.Annamalai
Member-Kumara Raja Muthiah School of Traditional Arts and Crafts.
7.Mr.V.Jayaraman
No.131, Chamiers Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 8,
8.P.V.Madhavi
No.7, Valmiki Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
9.Mr.KTR Raja Karuppan Chetty No.3-A, Damodharapuram Main Road, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.
10.Mrs.Meenakshi Annamalai
Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
11.Mr.V.Ravi Kumar
No.46, Kuya Aruna Giri 1st Street, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.
12.Manimekalai
No.2/64B, II Main Road, River View Colony, Manapakkam, Chennai 600 116.
13.Selvi, M43/2, Cosmpolitan Colony, West Avenue, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.
14.Mr.V.Ramoo
Kalakshetra Road,
Flat-C, Vijayashanthi Apartments, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.
15.Mr.M.Meyyappan
No.134-E, Aani Street,
Chinmaya Nagar, Stage 2,
Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092.
16.Mr.NK.Raman
No.125A, 5th Street, AVM Colony, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092.
17.Mr.S.V.N.Natrajan
No.9/24, 10th Cross Street,
Lakshmi Nagar, Porur, Chennai 600 116.
18.Mr.M.Thenappan
No.90, Rama Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
19.Mr.S.Chockalingam
No.9, Kollangudiar Street, Pasumadathar House, Devakottai.
20.Mr.AN.Chidambaram
No.9/39, NSTAN House, Melakatiam 2nd Street, Virachilai, Pudukotti 622 412.
21.Mr.C.Chockalingam
No.5/3C-1, AVM Avenue, Second Main Road, Virugambakkam, Chennai 600 092.
22.Mr.ARL Arunachalam
Flat GA, KG Woods, Old No.48/1, New No.64, 3rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.
23.Mr.A.Sathappan
Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
24.Mr.Muthu Manickam
AP 556, 17th Street,
4th Sector, K.K.Nagar, Chennai.
25.Mr.V.Manickam
Jayam Villa Flat No.4, 1st Floor, No.26/20, R K Nagar, 3rd Cross Street, RA Puram, Chennai 600 028.
26.Mr.Lakshmanan
G-2, Paru Apartments,
Essappa Chettiar Street, Vivesapuram, Karaikudi.
27.Mr.T.Kanagasabai
No.6-B, Ramachandra Iyer Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
28.Mr.M.Vellayan
No.177 E, Sir.C.V.Road,
Alwarthirunagar, Chennai
29.Mr.Praveen
Dharapuram Road, Tiruppur
30.Mr.Ramanathan
Sai Sarovar Apartments, No.3-B, 100 Feet Road, Velacherry, Chennai.
31.Mr.Ravi Shankar
A-1 B Block, Appasamy Springs Apts, Rajaji Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.
32.Mr.Raja
Center Point 348/221 222,
Lloyds Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai.
33.Mr.Vaithiya Nathan No.2/35, Main Street, Palagapuri, Keelacheval Post, Pudukottai District.
34.Mr.S.Krishnan
No.12/56, 3rd Main Road,
Venkatesh Nagar Extn-2,
Virugambakkam, Chennai
35.Mr.V.Josephine Jothi
C-12, Chettinad Staff,
Quarters Rajah Annamalaipuram,
Chennai
36.Mr.R.K.Karuppiah
3A, Damodarapuram Main Road,
Adyar, Chennai
37.Mr.N.Ramakrishnan
Chettinad House, Rajah Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600 028.
38.Mr.Alagappan
Godrej Tyson Foods Ltd, Rameshevara Village,
Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore.
39.Mr.L.Lakshmanan
Bhava Nadhiar Street, Sri Vihar Apts Block 3, Ground Floor, Ramarajapuram, Chennai.
40.Mr.Chidambaram
No.29/14, Shanmugaraja Street, Gandhi Nagar, Ekattuthangal, Chennai 32.
41.Mr.Narayanan 9th Majith Road 1st Cross Street, Sivanangai.
42.Mr.R.M.Ramanathan, No.37, JAwakar Street, Adivaram, Palani.
43.Mr.S.Ganesan
Mo.13, Sabari Apartments, West Vanniyar Street, West K.K.Nagar, Chennai 78.
44.The District Registrar of Societies Chennai Central, Chennai 14. 
N.SENTHILKUMAR J. sai
OA Nos.455 & 456 of 2026 and
A Nos.1036 & 2130 of 2026 and
OA Nos.183 to 185 of 2024 in CS No. 54 of 2024
14-05-2026