Summary
In a society-management dispute, the High Court used Article 227 to vacate a trial court’s injunction despite an available Civil Procedure Code appeal and another defendant’s pending appeal against the same order. The Supreme Court held that supervisory intervention was unwarranted. It also set aside the ensuing elections and appointed an advocate commissioner to conduct fresh elections and manage the transition.
Issues
- Whether Article 227 intervention was appropriate despite the specific statutory appeal against the injunction.
- What relief was appropriate after elections occurred under the impugned order.
Held
- Although an appeal is not invariably an absolute bar to constitutional supervision, an appellate remedy under the Civil Procedure Code against a civil-court order is a near-total bar in the interests of discipline and prudence. Here the direct appeal remedy and another defendant’s pending appeal made Article 227 intervention unjustified. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The injunction followed both sides’ pleadings, documents and arguments. Quick disposal alone did not justify its reversal, and the High Court neither addressed the merits nor properly considered the purported secretary’s existing restraint from acting for the society. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The subsequent election did not make effective relief inappropriate given the repeated disputes across several forums. The Court set aside the High Court order and resulting elections and prescribed a commissioner-led nomination and election process under the society’s bye-laws. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
Result
The appeal was allowed. S. Sornalatha was appointed commissioner and interim secretary until fresh election results. She was to seek nominations within two weeks; sponsoring bodies had one week to respond, followed by elections within four weeks of nominations and registration of Forms 6 and 7. The society was to pay ₹1 lakh remuneration plus expenses.