- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Breaking: Madras High Court Sets...
Breaking: Madras High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Restoring Status Quo Ante As On 23rd June In AIADMK
Upasana Sajeev
2 Sept 2022 10:45 AM IST
The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the order of a single judge restoring the status quo ante in the AIADMK party as on 23rd June, 2022.The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the orders allowing an appeal preferred by Edappadi Palaniswamy.The court held that the order of the single judge had created a functional deadlock in the party as there was no...
The Madras High Court on Friday set aside the order of a single judge restoring the status quo ante in the AIADMK party as on 23rd June, 2022.
The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the orders allowing an appeal preferred by Edappadi Palaniswamy.
The court held that the order of the single judge had created a functional deadlock in the party as there was no possibility for the petitioner Palaniswamy and the respodent Paneerselvam to act jointly.
By giving a direction that there shall be no Executive Council Meeting or General Council Meeting without joint consent of the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator, a situation has arisen where the party, as a whole, will undergo irreparable hardship, since there is no possibility of the appellant and the 1st respondent (in O.S.ANo.227 of 2022) acting jointly to convene a meeting, much less a General Council Meeting to discuss Single Leadership. The direction only furthers the "functional deadlock" that was already in existence in the Party.
Further, the court held that when majority of the General Council members, who were elected by the primary members, were in favour of convening a general council meeting on 11th July and had also supported the resolutions made on 23rd June, the balance of convenience was in favour of the appellants.
The court also highlighted that while remanding the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration the Supreme Court had ordered status quo as on 29th July. Thus the resolutions made in the meetings held on 23rd June and 29th July were undisturbed by the Apex Court
When the applications have been filed challenging the Special General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022 and when the learned Single Judge, by order dated 11.07.2022 permitted the convening of the Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Apex Court, by order dated 29.07.2022, while remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of 29.07.2022. It is pertinent to note that the Apex Court has not directed the parties to maintain status quo as on 11.07.2022 or on 23.06.2022. Therefore, it is clear that the Resolutions passed on 23.06.2022 and 11.07.2022 were not disturbed till the pronouncement of the order by the learned Single Judge in O.A.Nos.368, 370 and 379 of 2022 on 17.08.2022.
The appellants had contended that the order of the Single Judge was beyond the reach of law and virtually sets aside the order of the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the General Council meeting held on July 11, whereby a resolution was passed for expulsion of O Paneerselvam from the primary membership of the party and from his post as the Treasurer, was conducted after following due procedure.
The appellant also challenged the contention of the respondents that the view of the general council could not be taken as the will of the majority. Such contention would be striking at the fundamental principles of democracy and challenging every law made in the country, EPS side argued.
The appellants had further argued that the purpose of the meeting was met and emphasized that the party bye-laws gave powers to the General Council members. They further submitted that the order of the single judge had created a functional deadlock in the party as the appellant and the respondent could not act together.
On the other hand, the respondent-OPS side contended that in the party, Primary members were given priority. They further challenged the manner in which the notice to the July 11 meeting was issued. The notice was issued by the party headquarters whereas the byelaws clearly state that the notice had to be issued jointly by the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator, it was argued.
The respondents challenged the requisition and highlighted certain discrepancies in the signature obtained by the party members claiming to be the will of the majority.
Senior Counsels CS Vaidyanathan, Ariyama Sundaram and Vijay Narayan appeared for Edappadi Palaniswamy and Senior Counsel Guru Krishnakumar, Arvind Pandian and Advocate AK Sriram appeared for O Paneerselvam and Amman Vairamuthu.
Case Title: E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam
Case No: OSA 227 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
