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
[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: 🌹