CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 IN C.S.No.737 of 2020 Dr.M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust Represented by its Managing Trustee Dr.A.C. Muthiah

  1. [11/23, 18:13] Sekarreporter 1: 1 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
    RESERVED ON: 11.11.2020
    PRONOUNCED ON: 23.11.2020
    CORAM:
    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
    A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020
    IN
    C.S.No.737 of 2020
    Dr.M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust
    Represented by its Managing Trustee Dr.A.C. Muthiah
    having Office at Chettinad House, R.A.Puram,
    Chennai – 600 028. … Applicant/Plaintiff in
    both applications
    Vs.
    1. The Madras Race Club
    Represented by its Secretary
    2. Mr.M.A.M.R. Muthiah
    3. Mr. Arun Alagappan
    4. Mr.Chanduranga Kanthrajurs
    5. Dr.T.Devanathan Yadav
    6. Mr.Paul Antony
    7. Mr.K.Shashabindu Das
    … Defendants/Respondents 1 to 7 in both
    Applications
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    2 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    Having Office at
    Madras Race Club,
    (Stewards Committee Members)
    Guindy,
    Chennai – 600 032. … Defendants 1 to 7 /Respondents 1 to 7
    in both Applications
    8. Kumararani Dr.Meena Muthiah
    9. Mr.Ashwin C Muthiah
    10. Mr.ARL. Sundaresan
    … Defendants/Respondents 8 to 10
    in both Applications
    Having Office at
    Dr.M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust
    Trustees, Chettinad House, R.A.Puram,
    Chennai – 600 028.
    … Defendants 8 to 10/Respondents 8 to 10
    in both Applications
    PRAYER IN A.No. 1164/2020:
    This application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S Rules and
    Section 151 CPC, directing the defendants 1 to 7/respondents 1 to 7 to
    register the transfer of the two years old horses under mentioned in the
    name of the applicant and grant them entry permission into Madras Race
    Club premises for training by the authorised trainers pending disposal of
    the above suit.
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    3 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    Sl.No. Horse Name Trainer Name
    1. Plantaire/Aahayaran
    B.C. (2 years Old)
    R.Foley
    2. Plantaire/Ocean
    Queen B.C. (2 years Old)
    R.Foley
    3. Planetaire – Swan Maiden B.C.
    (2 years Old)
    B. Suresh
    4. Planetaire – Ruby Queen B.F
    (@ yers Old)
    B.Suresh
    PRAYER IN A.No. 1165/2020:
    This application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S Rules and
    Section 151 CPC, directing the defendants 1 to 7 / respondents 1 to 7 to
    register new horses acquired by the applicant and grant them permission
    for entering Madras Race Club and undertaking training pending disposal
    of the above suit.
    ***
    For Applicant in
    both applications : Mr. R.Srinivas for
    Mr. S. Sithirai Anandam
    For 1st Respondent in
    both Applications : Mr. Aniruth Krishnan
    For 2nd Respondent in
    both Applications : Mr. T.Mohan for
    Mr. Suresh Kumar
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    4 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    For 8th to 10th Respondents in
    both applications : Mr. G.Masilamani
    Senior Counsel for
    Mr. T.Sathiyamoorthy
    COMMON ORDERS
    Both these applications have been filed by the plaintiff in the suit,
    Dr.M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable Trust, seeking a
    direction against the first to seventh defendants to register the transfer of
    the four named two years old horses in the name of the plaintiff and grant
    permission for entry into Madras Race Club premises for training by
    authorised trainers and for a direction against the first to seventh
    defendants to register new horses acquired by the plaintiff and also grant
    permission for entering Madras Race Club and undertaking training.
    2. In A.No. 1164 of 2020, the names of the four horses have been
    given and the application is focused on grant of permission of those four
    horses.
    3. In A.No. 1165 of 2020, the plaintiff seeks a direction for
    registration of new horses and has also sought permission for entering of
    the horses into the Madras Race Club premises for undertaking training.
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    5 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    This application appears to be focussed with respect to any new horses
    that may be acquired by the plaintiff.
    4. The plaintiff had filed the suit seeking a Judgment and Decree
    declaring that the order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Stewards
    Committee of the first defendant, the Madras Race Club, was illegal and
    void and for a permanent injunction restraining the first to seventh
    defendants from obstructing or preventing the horses owned by the
    plaintiff’s Trust in participating in any race conducted by the first
    defendant at present or in future and for a permanent injunction restraining
    the first to seventh defendants from preventing the plaintiff’s Trust from
    moving its horses to and from the first defendant as may be required for the
    maintenance and racing of the horses.
    5. Applications had been filed along with the plaint seeking interim
    injunctions in O.A.Nos. 1194 & 1995 of 2019 and also directions in
    A.Nos. 9890 & 9891 of 2019. Those applications came up for
    consideration before my learned brother Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J and
    by an elaborate, detailed and well reasoned order dated 01.01.2020, the
    learned Judge had allowed the said applications on the following terms
    pending disposal of the suit:-
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    6 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    “(i) The applicant shall not be prevented, directly or
    indirectly, from fielding the horses procured directly by
    and owned by the applicant in races conducted by the
    first respondent on the basis of the order dated
    26.12.2019 of the Stewards Committee or otherwise.
    (ii) The first respondent shall collect the necessary entry
    and other fees so as to enable the participation of the
    horses of the applicant in the classic races conducted by
    it for the 2020-2021 season.
    (iii) The Applicant shall not be prevented from taking its
    horses from the custody of the first respondent for the
    purpose of participating in other races subject to
    necessary compliances, in that regard, as per the rules of
    the first respondent.
    (iv) The applicant shall not field any horses that were
    originally owned by the late Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy in
    any of the races of the fist respondent.
    (v) The Applicant shall not be prevented from using the
    gold brown colour racing jersey.”
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    7 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    6. The necessity for the filing of the present applications had arisen
    owing to the fact that the plaintiff had purchased four two years old horses,
    namely, (1) Plantaire/Aahaygran B.C., (2) Plantaire/Ocean Queen B.C.,
    (3) Planetaire – Swan Maiden B.C., and (4) Planetaire – Ruby Queen B.F.,
    and their trainers R.Foley and B.Suresh had addressed a letter on
    13.02.2020 to the CEO/ Secretary of the first defendant enclosing requisite
    documents seeking permission for the said horses to enter the Madras Race
    Club under their charge. The passport and sale forms of the four horses
    were also submitted to the first defendant on 13.02.2020. An E-mail was
    sent by the plaintiff on 19.2.2020 to the Senior Stipendiary Steward of the
    first defendant complaining about the non registration of the horses and the
    refusal to grant permission to enter the Madras Race Club. Reasons for
    refusal were also sought. Further E-mails were also sent drawing the
    attention to the orders of this Court mentioned supra in O.A.Nos. 1194 &
    1195 of 2019 and A.Nos. 9890 & 9891 of 2019. The CEO /Secretary of
    the first defendant then responded by an E-mail dated 03.03.2020 stating
    that the issue would be placed before the Stewards of the first defendant
    for consideration on 07.03.2020. On 09.03.2020 a communication was
    sent to the plaintiff by the CEO/Secretary of the first defendant that though
    the issue was placed in the meeting on 07.03.2020, the Stewards could not
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    8 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    proceed further since the matter was subjudice. Questioning such a stand
    taken and claiming that rejection was unlawful and improper and stares in
    the face of the order by this Court, mentioned supra, which order had not
    been taken up further appeal by the first defendant and also stating that the
    first defendant had granted permission to the horses to participate in the
    races from January 2020 to March 2020 and thereafter taking such a
    contradictory stand is arbitrary, the applications have been filed seeking
    directions as stated above.
    7. The first defendant filed a counter wherein it had been stated that
    the Stewards of the first defendant, in their meeting on 07.03.2020 had
    amended the definition of ‘owner’ under the rules of the first defendant.
    The Board of Steward had unanimously decided that only the following
    category of persons/ entity can alone had registered as a owner under the
    Madras Race Club Rules of Racing. They were
    (a) Individual owner/s;
    (b) Owner in partnership with not more than five individual owners in
    a horse in equal share;
    (c) A limited company;
    (d) A racing syndicate; and
    (e) A limited liability partnership
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    9 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    8. It had been further decided that other than the above categories,
    no ownership of any other entity whatsoever shall be registered as owner/s
    under the Madras Race Club Rules of Racing. It was further decided that
    the said amendment shall come into force with effect from 23.03.2020.
    9. Placing reliance on the above resolution, the first defendant
    pointed out that the plaintiff, being a public Charitable Trust, does not fall
    under any of the above five categories and therefore the plaintiff was
    prohibited from being eligible to register their horses with the first
    defendant. It was also stated that in view of the amendment, the relief
    sought in the applications have become infructuous and as a matter of fact,
    the suit itself should be dismissed.
    10. It was further stated that the last race conducted by the first
    defendant club took place on 08.03.2020 and thereafter races could not be
    conducted owing to the lock down measures implemented post Covid 19
    pandemic. It was denied that the actions of the first defendant were
    arbitrary or unreasonable. It was also stated that the final relief itself has
    been sought in the present applications and that if these applications are to
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    10 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    be considered, they would be against the spirit and sole of the rules and
    regulations of the first defendant. It was therefore sought that the
    applications should be dismissed.
    11. A reply was filed by the plaintiff to the said counter affidavit,
    wherein it had been stated that in view of the earlier findings of this Court
    and the orders passed in O.A.Nos. 1194 & 1195 of 2019 and A.Nos. 9890
    & 9891 of 2019, the first defendant cannot rely on the amendment to the
    rules said to have been carried on 07.03.2020 and which had come into
    effect on 22.03.2020 and contend that the plaintiff is disentitled to the
    reliefs sought in the present applications. It was reiterated that the
    applications should be allowed.
    12. A counter affidavit had also been filed on behalf of the second
    defendant wherein again reliance was placed on the amendment brought
    during the meeting dated 07.03.2020 by the Stewards Committee which
    amendment had come into effect from 23.03.2020 and it was stated that
    since the plaintiff is a public charitable trust, they are prohibited from
    being eligible to register horses with the first defendant. It was also
    contended that the order dated 10.01.2020 by this Court had not directed
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    11 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    the first defendant to register newly acquired horses of the plaintiff. It was
    therefore contended that the application should be dismissed.
    13. A reply was filed by the plaintiff to the said counter affidavit
    wherein it had been stated that the orders of this Court dated 10.01.2020
    referred above cannot be set aside by effecting an amendment and the
    operative portion of the said order was again reiterated. It was stated that
    the applications should be allowed.
    14. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.R.Srinivas learned counsel for
    Mr. S.Sithirai Anandam, learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff;
    Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy,
    learned counsel for the 8
    th to 10th defendants and also by Mr. Aniruth
    Krishnan, learned counsel for the first defendant and also by Mr.T.Mohan,
    learned counsel for Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the second
    defendant.
    15. It had been very seriously argued by Mr.G.Masilamani, learned
    Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy, learned counsel for the 8
    th to 10th
    defendants, who took a stand in favour of the plaintiff that this Court by
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    12 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    order dated 10.01.2020 in O.A.Nos. 1194 & 1995 of 2019 and A.Nos.
    9890 & 9891 of 2019 had, after examining the entire issues raised, passed
    comprehensive directions primarily permitting the plaintiff herein to field
    horses in the races conducted by the first defendant. The learned Senior
    Counsel pointed out to the usage of the words “procured directly” in
    clause (i) of paragraph 24 of the order and also on the further words
    “owned by the applicant” in the very same clause which granted
    permission to the plaintiff to participate in the race. It had been
    specifically ordered that the order dated 26.12.2019 of the Stewards
    Committee should not be the basis for preventing the horses from
    participating in the races.
    16. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that to the last two
    words of clause (i) “or otherwise” and stated that the first defendant
    therefore cannot take any other step to prevent the plaintiff horses from
    participating in the races. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out
    the letter of the CEO / the Secretary of the first defendant dated 09.03.2020
    wherein the request of the plaintiff had been rejected on the ground that ”
    the matter is subjudice”. The learned Senior Counsel wondered as to how
    after taking such a stand, the Stewards could pass an amendment
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    13 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    specifically disqualifying a public charitable trust when such a trust is the
    plaintiff in the suit and claimed that such an amendment had been brought
    into effect only with sole objection to disqualify the horses belongig to the
    plaintiff and the plaintiff alone.
    17. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on AIR 1962 SC 1172
    Pratap Singh and Another Vs. Gurbaks Singh and AIR 1968 SC 1513
    Govind Sahai and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another. The learned
    Senior Counsel stated that any conduct, which interferes with or prejudices
    parties litigant, during the litigation cannot withstand the scrutiny of the
    Court.
    18. Mr. R.Srinivas, learned counsel, who appears for Mr. S.Sithirai
    Anandam, learned counsel for the plaintiff also supported the arguments of
    Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel and in addition also relied on
    2014 AIR SC 2407 Sate of Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Kerala and another,
    wherein a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing
    with the disputes between the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala with
    respect to raising the level of the Mullaperiyar Dam had examined the
    2006 (Amendment) Act introduced by the Government of Kerala which
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    14 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    authorised the Dam Safety Authority to adjudge the safety to allow raising
    of water level, had held that the said State legislation was in direct
    disregard to the Judgment of the Court. It was stated that once a judicial
    decision on a particular fact achieves finality, the legislature cannot reopen
    such final Judgment directly or indirectly.
    19. Mr.Aniruth Krishnan, learned counsel for the first defendant
    sought to justify the decision taken to bring about the amendment by
    stating that the Stewards Committee is an independent body and they can
    take decisions and they cannot be prevented from taking decisions.
    Learned counsel stated that the order of the learned Single Judge relied on
    by the plaintiff related to horses which were existent on that particular date
    and horses subsequently purchased would be bound by decision taken by
    the first defendant and in this case, the Stewards Committee had taken a
    decision not to permit any Charitable Trusts from owning the horses.
    20. This argument of Mr.Aniruth Krishnan also found favour with
    Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel who argued on behalf of Mr.Suresh Kumar,
    learned counsel for the second defendant. Learned counsel also pointed
    out that the order relied on by the plaintiff was with respect to “the set of
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    15 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    horses” which were “transfered to the Trust and handed over to the first
    defendant”. The learned counsel stated that the said order can be restricted
    only to those horses and cannot be extended to include horses acquired by
    the plaintiff subsequently. The decision of the Stewards Committee to
    amend the rules was also justified by Mr.T.Mohan on those grounds.
    21. I have carefully considered the materials on record and the
    arguments advanced.
    22. The parties would be referred as plaintiff and defendants.
    23. The plaintiff, Dr.M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad
    Charitable Trust, had filed the suit seeking a declaration that an order
    dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Steward Committee of the first defendant,
    Madras Race Club is null and void and for consequential injunctions
    restraining the defendants 1 to 7 from obstructing and preventing the
    horses owned by the plaintiff from participating in any race conducted by
    the first defendant at present or in future or from moving their horses to
    and from the first defendant as required for maintenance and racing of the
    horses.
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    16 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    24. On an earlier occasion, the plaintiff had filed O.A.Nos. 1194 &
    1995 of 2019 and A.Nos. 9890 & 9891 of 2019 seeking to restrain the
    defendants from enforcing the order dated 26.12.2019 of the Stewards
    Committee and for consequential orders directing the defendants to permit
    the plaintiff to pay the necessary entry fee and participate in the races
    conducted by the first defendant in the year 2020-2021 season and also to
    restrain the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from taking out any of
    their horse from the premises of the first defendant if it is deemed
    necessary. Those applications were heard by my learned brother
    Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J and a detailed order was passed on
    10.01.2020 and the following directions were issued:-
    “(i) The applicant shall not be prevented, directly or
    indirectly, from fielding the horses procured directly by
    and owned by the applicant in races conducted by the
    first respondent on the basis of the order dated
    26.12.2019 of the Stewards Committee or otherwise.
    (ii) The first respondent shall collect the necessary entry
    and other fees so as to enable the participation of the
    horses of the applicant in the classic races conducted by
    it for the 2020-2021 season.
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    17 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    (iii) The Applicant shall not be prevented from taking its
    horses from the custody of the first respondent for the
    purpose of participating in other races subject to
    necessary compliances, in that regard, as per the rules of
    the first respondent.
    (iv) The applicant shall not field any horses that were
    originally owned by the late Dr.M.A.M.Ramaswamy in
    any of the races of the fist respondent.
    (v) The Applicant shall not be prevented from using the
    gold brown colour racing jersey.”
    25. By the present applications, I have been invited to examine
    whether interpretation of the said order would require granting a direction
    against the first to seventh defendants to register new horses acquired by
    the plaintiff and grant them permission to enter the first defendant club and
    undertake training and more particularly with respect to the four named
    two years’ old horses.
    26. It is to be noted that the order of my learned brother had not been
    taken further in appeal by any of the parties. The order has attained
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    18 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    finality. The parties to the suit have taken a conscious decision to abide by
    the directions issued. The order is comprehensive in nature.
    27. Prudence cautions me and adherence to respect the Rule of Law
    prohibits me from entering into any venture, indicative of examining the
    said order passed by my learned brother. The order speak for itself. As on
    date, it is binding on the parties to the suit. I will also hold, with much
    pleasure, that it is also persuasive on me, owing to the mutual respect
    which has to be extended to a co-ordinate bench of this Court.
    28. In the affidavit filed in support of these applications, the relevant
    portions actually commence from paragraph 50 onwards. The practice of
    ‘cut, paste and copy’ of earlier averments now practised with gay abandon
    in legal drafting with little reflection on relevance has to be abhorred.
    29. Be that as it may, it is the grievance of the plaintiff that they had
    purchased four new two years old horses and had sought permission of the
    first defendant by submitting requisite documents including passport and
    sale forms to enter the first defendant club for training by authorised
    trainers and also to permit registration of any further new horses acquired
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    19 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    by the plaintiff and grant them also permission to enter the first defendant
    club for training purposes and that the said requisition had been rejected by
    the first defendant ostensibly on the ground that the “matter is subjudice”.
    The letter of the CEO and Secretary of the first defendant dated 09.03.2020
    with the subject “permission for Two year olds” reads as follows:-
    “From : Raman T <ceo@madrasraceclub.com>
    Date: Monday, March 9, 2020
    Subject: Permission for Two year olds
    To: “Dr. M.A.M.Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad Charitable
    Trust” <mamrctrust@gmail.com
    The Managing Trustee
    Dr. M.A.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar of Chettinad
    Charitable Trust
    Chettinad House
    R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028.
    Dear Sir,
    Ref: Your email dated March 2, 2020
    With reference to the above, we wish to state that your above email
    was placed before the Stewards of Madras Race Club at the meeting held
    on 7
    th March 2020 and I am directed by the Stewards to inform you that
    since the matter is subjudice, the Stewards of the Madras Race Club are
    not in a position to proceed further in the matter.
    Kind regards,
    T.Raman
    CEO & Secretary”
    30. The Stewards of the first defendant had taken a cautious stand
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    20 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    and this had been informed to the plaintiff. They had apparently taken
    such a stand in their meeting held on 07.03.2020. That they had taken
    such a stand had been informed by the first defendant to the plaintiff. That
    such information is false to the knowledge of the first defendant is exposed
    by the minutes of the meeting held on 07.03.2020. A kangaroo
    congregation had apparently been convened with the sole aim to
    circumvent the letter and spirit of the order of my learned brother and
    placing reliance on provisions, which should not have been adhered to, if
    the matter is actually in their opinion “subjudice” and throwing caution to
    the wind, a resolution was passed amending the definition of “owner”
    under the rules of the first defendant and specifically omitting to mention
    in the accepted category, a “trust”. Taking shelter behind such an
    amendment, the first defendant had issued an advance calendar notification
    giving the category of owners of horses who shall be permitted to be
    registered and raced under the rules of the first defendant and that
    nobodyelse shall be registered as owners under the said rules.
    31. The doors which had been opened by the Court to enable the
    plaintiff to participate in the races conducted by the first defendant were
    closed shut in the face of the Court by the first defendant by adopting such
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    21 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    an amendment to the rules. In my considered opinion, the term “kangaroo
    congregation” is certainly justified since on the one hand, they claimed
    privilege to reject the application of the plaintiff on the ground that the
    matter is subjudice but, on the other hand while simultaneously claiming
    that it is subjudice, they had the audacity to bring about an amendment
    solely to exclude the plaintiff and the plaintiff alone. I hold that malafide
    is writ large in the resolution brought about by the Stewards of the Madras
    Race Club in their meeting dated 07.03.2020. Further, malice is also writ
    large on the first defendant since in the letter extracted above dated
    09.03.2020, this aspect was not brought to the notice of the plaintiff by the
    CEO and Secretary of the first defendant. The first defendant appears to
    be an organisation which thrives in conducting their matters in an uniquely
    condemnable manner since in the public communication dated 09.03.2020,
    they had exhibited a respectful attitude towards Court proceedings but
    behind the doors, they had passed a resolution with scant regard or respect
    for the Court order dated 10.01.2020 by my learned brother. This attitude
    cannot be permitted and is prevented and prohibited by me.
    32. Arguments putforth by the learned counsel for the first defendant
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    22 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    justifying the said amendment are strait-away rejected since there could be
    no justification for a group of individuals taking a decision in defiance of
    the directions passed on by this Court. The order dated 10.01.2020 is
    clear. It grants protection to the plaintiff. If interpretation is required, the
    first defendant should have taken legal recourse for the same. They have
    not. They have decided not to. They should therefore not have attempted
    to act as an appellate authority and try ingenious methods to deny the
    plaintiff the valuable rights granted by the Court.
    33. In AIR 1968 SC 1513 [Govind Sahai and Another Vs. State of
    U.P. and another], the Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining a
    Judgment of the Allahabad High Court finding the appellants guilty of
    having committed contempt of Court and sentencing each of them to pay a
    fine of Rs.500/- , upheld the said order in the following words:-
    “In the instant case, the passing of the orders
    of expulsion, by the two appellants, against the
    second respondent, and the filing of a supporting
    affidavit, in the suit by the second appellant,
    clearly indicate that it was a deliberate attempt, by
    the appellants, to interfere with, or prejudice the
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    23 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    second respondent, in the conduct of the litigation,
    instituted by him. It is no answer that the action,
    by way of expulsion, was taken on the basis of the
    Resolution, of the All India Congress Working
    Committee, and to enforce discipline, in the
    Congress Organization. As emphasized by
    S.K.Das, J., in Pratap Singh’s Case (1962) Supp
    2 SCR 838, 848, ‘any conduct, which interferes
    with, or prejudices parties litigant, during the
    litigation, is undoubtedly Contempt of Court’. The
    High Court, in this case, was justified in holding
    the appellants guilty of contempt. We agree with
    the said conclusion.”
    34. The facts in that case are that the second respondent therein, V.P.
    Singh, who was an advocate, practising at Azamgarh, and was a member of
    the Congress Organisation stood for election for membership of the
    Primary Congress Committee held on 10.04.1964. His opponent Badri
    Singh was declared elected. V.P. Singh filed a suit No. 132 of 1964 in the
    Court of the City Munsif, Azamgarh, for having the election declared void
    and in operative. He also filed applications seeking interim injunctions
    which were also granted. Applications were also filed to vacate the order
    of interim injunction.
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    24 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    35. The Working Committee of the Indian National Congress had
    earlier passed a resolution on 4/5-12-1950 wherein it had been resolved
    that if there was any grievance with any action taken by a Congress
    Organisation then redressal should be by way of appeal or reference to
    tribunals which had been established and the matters should not be taken
    to the law Courts. In view of such resolution, the President of the UP
    Congress Committee expelled V.P.Singh and removed his name from the
    membership of the Congress. This was brought to the knowledge of the
    District Munsif, who dismissed the injunction applications. Thereafter,
    V.P. Singh filed an application for contempt on the ground that pending
    the suit an order of expulsion had been passed which had directly
    interfered with the normal course of justice by hampering the progress of
    the suit.
    36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the orders of the
    Allahabad High Court, which had stated that such an order of expulsion
    pending the suit was an order of contempt.
    37. The ratio laid therein applies with equal force to the facts of the
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    25 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    present case.
    38. The stand of the first defendant in the counter has to be
    deprecated. They had stated that consideration of the present applications
    would imply grant of the reliefs sought in the suit, but had also stated that
    in view of the amendment, the suit itself should be dismissed. They should
    realise that what applies for the goose applies for the gander also.
    39. A Constitution Bench in 2014 AIR SC 2407 [State of tamil
    Nadu Vs. State of Kerala & Another], also had occasion to examine a
    unilateral law enacted by one of the parties that resulted in over turning a
    final Judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.154 held as
    follows:-
    “154. Where a dispute between two States has
    already been adjudicated upon by this Court, which
    it is empowered to deal with, any unilateral law
    enacted by one of the parties that results in
    overturning the final Judgment is bad not because it
    is affected by the principles of res judicta but
    because it infringes the doctrine of separation of
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    26 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    powers and rule of law, as by such law, the
    legislature has clearly usurped the judicial power. ”
    40. The dispute between the States related to the raising the level of
    the Mullaperiyar Dam and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had restrained the
    State of Kerala. A law was enacted by the State of Kerala fixing the
    storage height of the dam at 136 ft. It was under that circumstance that the
    Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the State of Kerala had nullified the 2006
    Judgment and had usurped judicial power.
    41. The facts in the present case are still more alarming. The learned
    Single Judge had adjudicated on merits after hearing arguments from all
    sides and issued certain directions. The plaintiff had then purchased four
    horses. They sought permission with the first defendant for registration and
    for training and for participating in the races. The first defendant, if they
    had any doubt whether to entertain such request should have, atleast out of
    courtesy to the Court and to the Rule of Law sought clarification from the
    Court. They however have passed a resolution to circumvent the orders of
    the Court by disqualifying a ‘Trust’ from owing any horse. They have done
    that only because of the plaintiff is a ‘Trust’. They have done so, but still
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    27 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    the first defendant, exhibiting eyewash humbleness stated that a decision
    cannot be taken on the application of the plaintiff since the matter is
    subjudice when actually the plaintiff has been nonsuited just as in the case
    cited Govind Sahai and Another (AIR 1968 SC 1513) referred supra.
    The second respondent therein was expelled from the Congress. The
    plaintiff has been expelled herein. The order of the Stewards Committee
    of the first defendant is bad because they have been encouraged to “usurp
    judicial power.”
    42. I have no hesitation in holding, not withstanding any resolution
    passed on 07.03.2020 or on any other date, the plaintiff’s rights which have
    already been granted, must be extended and safeguarded until disposal of
    the suit. Applications are allowed as prayed for.
    43. This is a fit case for costs to be imposed on the first defendant
    and accordingly, costs of Rs.1/- lakh is imposed on the first defendant
    payable forthwith in the name of Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government
    General Hospital, Periyar EVR Salai, Park Town, Chennai. Let the
    first defendant atleast participate in the noble cause of extending their hand
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    28 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    to provide relief to unfortunate patients undergoing treatement in the said
    Government Hospital and thereby, to a small extent purge themselves of
    the act of disregrading the orders of this Court.
    44. Applications allowed as prayed for with costs as above.
    23.11.2020
    Index:Yes/No
    Web:Yes/No
    Speaking order : Yes / No
    vsg
    C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    29 A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020 in C.S.No. 737 of 2020
    vsg
    Pre-delivery order made in
    A.Nos. 1164 & 1165 of 2020
    IN
    C.S.No.737 of 2020
    23.11.2020
    http://www.judis.nic.in
    [11/23, 18:13] Sekarreporter 1: 🌹

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME