IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.05.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH O.S.A.Nos.115, 116, 124 and 139 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2011 O.S.A.No.115 of 2011 1. Ms.D.Prasanna Advocate, No.364 , New Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 2. Ms.V.Alamelu, Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. 3. Ms.G.Kavitha, Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. 4. Ms.R.Vidya, Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai ..Appellants Vs. 1. A.B.Fathima Sulthanam W/o E.Gulab, No.17, III Floor, Sivasankaran Apartmetns, Sivasanakaran Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ...Respondent No.1/Applicant/ Plaintiff https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Women Lawyers Association, represented by its Secretary, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 3. S.Thamizharasi, Advocate, No.301, New Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 4. Ms.V.Nalini Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 5. Ms.N.Beulah John Selvaraj, Advocate, No.333, New Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 6. Ms.G.V.Shoba, Advocate, No.78, Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 014. 7. Ms.S.Suseela Devi, Advocate, Women lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. 8. Ms.K.Nandini, Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. 9. Ms.J.Sundara Kanchani, Advocate, No.157, New Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. Ms.D.Mary Rose Poongothai, Advocate, Women lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. ..Respondents 2 to 10 Prayer in OSA.115 of 2011: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S.Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order and Decree dated 9.4.2011 passed in O.A.No.330 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011. For Appellants : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s. Row and Reddy For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari for M/s. Nesreen banu for R1 Mrs. Chitra Sampath for R2 & R4 Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for Ms.V.Vanitha for R3 Ms.D.Nagasaila for R5 Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.A.Srinivasan for R6 Mrs.V.J.Latha for R8 No appearance for R7, R9 & R10. O.S.A.No.116 of 2011 1. The Women Lawyers Association, rep. by its Secretary, High Court Buildings, Chennai. 2. Ms.V.Nalini, Advocate Women Lawyers Association, Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. ..Appellants /Respondents 1 & 4 Defendants 1 & 4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vs. 1. A.B.Fathima Sulthanam W/o E.Gulab, No.17, III Floor, Sivasankaran Apartments, Sivasanakaran Salai, Teynampet, Chennai8 – 600 018 ...Respondent 1/Applicant/ Plaintiff 2. Ms.D.Prasanna Advocate, No.364 , New Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 3. S.Thamizharasi, Advocate, No.301, New Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 4. Ms.N.Beulah John Selvaraj, Advocate, No.333, New Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 9. Ms.K.Nandini Advocate, No.78, Additional Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 014. 6. Ms.V.Alamelu, Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. 7. Ms.G.Kavitha, Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. 8. Ms.S.Suseela Devi, Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Ms.V.Nalini Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 10. Ms.R.Vidya, Advocate, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. 11. Ms.Sundara Kanchani, Advocate, No.170, New Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai. 12. Ms.Mary Rose Poongothai, Advocate Women Lawyers Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai. ..Respondents 2-12/ Respondents 2,3, 5 to 13 Defendants 2,3,5 to 13 Prayer in O.S.A.No.116 of 2011: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order and decree dated 9.4.2011 made in O.A.No.330 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011. For Appellants : Mrs.Chitra Sampath For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavacnari for Ms.M.Nasereen Banu for R1 Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s. Row and Reddy for R2, R6, R7 and R10. Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel for Ms.V.Vanitha for R3 Ms.D.Nagasaila for R4 Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.A.srinivasan for R5 Mrs.V.J.Latha for R9 No appearance for R8, R11 & R12. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O.S.A.No.124 of 2011 1. T.Jeyasudha, W/o Thulasiraman, No.B-1, 5th Main road Thirumalai Nagar, Asthinapuram, Chrompet Chennai – 600 044. 2. Magesh Sheela, Women Lawyers Association, High Court, Chennai. 3. S.Punitha, D/o Shanmugam, Women Lawyers Association, High Court , Chennai. 4. L.Vijayalakshmi, D/o D.Loganathan, No.10, S.R.Koil Street, Periyakuppam, Thiruvallur. 5. B.Arthi, D/o Bhaskaran, No.31, Dr.Ambedkar Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. 6. T.Malathy, D/o S.V.Thanikachalam, No.3/33, Dr.Ambedkar Main Road, Cholavaram, Chennai – 600 067. ..Appellants/Proposed Respondents in C.S.No.215 of 2011 Cause title accepted vide order of Court dt.21.4.2011 made in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in OSA 35210 of 2011 -Vs- 1. Women Lawyers Association, rep. By its Secretary, 1st Floor, Additional Law Chambers, High Court, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Ms.V.Jeya Rohini, Member, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Building, Chennai – 600 104. ..Respondents. Prayer in OSA.124 of 2011: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S.Rules R/w Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 9.4.2011 made in Application No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.no.215 of 2011. For Appellants : Mr.S.R.Rajagopal for Mr.V.Anil Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.Chitra Sampath for R1 Mr.S.Prabhakaran for R2 for Mr.R.Annamalai O.S.A.No.139 of 2011 Ms.V.Jeya Rohini, Member, Women Lawyers Association, High Court Building, Chennai – 600 104. ..Appellant -Vs- The Women Lawyers Association, rep. By its Secretary, First Floor, Additional Law Chambers, High Court, Chennai – 600 014. ..Respondent Prayer in OSA.No.139 of 2011 Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1l of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15of Letters Patent Act against the order and decretal order dated 9.4.2011 made in Application No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011. For Appellant : Mr.S.Prabhakaran for Mr.R.Annamalai For Respondent : Mrs.Chitra Sampath. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was delivered by .PERIYA KARUPPIAH.,J.) 1. (a) O.S.A.No.115 of 2011 This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.No.330 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011 along with A.Nos. 1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011 and A.Nos. 331 and 1910 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011 by respondents 2, 7, 8 and 11 (defendants 2, 7 8 and 11 in the suit). (b) O.S.A.No.116 of 2011 This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.No.330 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011 along with A.Nos. 1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011 and A.Nos. 331 and 1910 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011 by the first respondent (first defendant). (c) O.S.A.No.124 of 2011 This appeal is directed against the finding in paragraph 23(c) of the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011 along with A.Nos. 331 and 1910 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011 by the appellants who were the parties sought to be impleaded in the suit. (d) O.S.A.No.139 of 2011 This appeal is directed against the order passed in A.No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011 along with A.Nos. 331 and 1910 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011 by the applicant/plaintiff. 2. All the four appeals have been preferred by the parties to the application in A.No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011, O.A.Nos.330 of 2011 and 331 of 2011 and A.No.1910 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011. 3. The suit in C.S.No.215 of 2011 was filed by the applicant/plaintiff in A.No.1805 of 2011 for certain reliefs as stated in the plaint. The first defendant is the Women Lawyers Association, a Society registered under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and its registration number is 65/1990 which would be referred as W.L.A. hereinafter for convenience sake. 4. The object of W.L.A. is to promote rights and welfare of the women and children through legislation and also to advise them in exercise of their rights and to maintain rights and privilege of the women lawyers. The said W.L.A. is governed by bye-laws of the Association which was formed on 14.01.1990. Any women lawyer/law graduate/law student is eligible to become its member. The women lawyers who are practising in law are qualified as ordinary members. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Women law graduates and women law students who become the members of W.L.A. are considered as associate members. The said ordinary members alone have the right to vote and to contest the election of office bearers of the Association. The particulars of office bearers to be elected from its ordinary members and the rules governing the election and the Annual General Meetings to be conducted for the said W.L.A. and the system of removing the members are enunciated in its bye laws. The election to the Executive Committee which consists of President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Librarian and five Committee Members would be done in the month of April biannually. 5. The aforesaid suit in C.S.No.215 of 2011 was filed by a member of the W.L.A. who also filed an application in A.No.1805 of 2011 to appoint two independent respectable Election Officers to conduct the election of Executive Committee Member of W.L.A. during the month of April 2011 as decided by the said Association. According to the plaint filed by the plaintiff in C.S.No.215 of 2011, the election for the Office bearers of W.L.A. was likely to be held on 20.04.2011 and the nomination of two Election Officers in an extra ordinary General Body meeting convened on 28.02.2011 was in contravention of certain important requisites of convening the General Body Meeting. The reliefs sought for by the applicant in C.S.No.215 of 2011 are as follows: (i) declaring that the resolution dated 28.02.2011 passed by the General Body of the defendant association, appointing two election officers namely (1) Ms. Sundara Kanchana and (2) Miss.Mary Rose Poongothai, for the election of executive committee members of the defendant association, scheduled to be held on 20.04.2011 is null and void and non-est in law. (ii) appointing two Independent and respectable election officers, from the members of the defendant association, to conduct the election for the executive committee members of the defendant association, scheduled to be held on 20.04.2011. (iii) granting such other reliefs or relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) and awarding the costs of the suit and thus render justice. 6. At the time of filing the said suit, a permission petition was filed in A.No.1804 of 2011 for prosecuting the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. and the learned single Judge has granted permission to the request of the applicant/plaintiff in A.No.1804 of 2011. As said already the applicant/plaintiff had filed the Application in A.No.1805 of 2011 seeking for appointment of two independent and respectable election https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ officers from the members of the respondent Association (WLA) to conduct the election for Executive Members of the respondent Association scheduled to be held on 20.4.2011, pending disposal of the suit. 7. However yet another suit was filed in C.S.No.243 of 2011 by another member of W.L.A. against the W.L.A. and its Office bearers and the Election Officers appointed to conduct election on 20.04.2011 and for certain reliefs. The plaintiff, in the said suit, being an ordinary member of the said Association has raised several grounds apart from the grounds mentioned in the earlier suit filed in the representative capacity for the following reliefs. "(a) For a declaration that the Annual general Meeting held on 28.02.2011 notifying the election to be held, to elect the office bearers of 1st defendant Association/Society for the period 2011-2013 as invalid, being in contravention of the bye-laws of the 1st defendant society. (b) Consequently to grant an order of injunction restraining the defendants 1, 12 and13 from conducting the Election for the 1st defendant Association pursuant to the Annual General Meeting held on 28.02.2011 for the period 2011-2013 to be held on 20.04.2011. (c) Consequently to grant an order of injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 11 from functioning and discharging their duties and powers as the Office Bearers of the 1st defendant Association. (d) to frame a scheme, regarding scrutiny of new members who have not completed 3 years of membership in Women Lawyers Association and non-resident members and (e) to pass such further or other orders and render justice." 8. The said plaintiff has filed three applications in O.A.No.330 of 2011, 331 of 2011 and A.No.1910 of 2011 for the respective reliefs of (i) an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 12 and 13 (Election Officers appointed for conducting election on 20.4.2011) from conducting the election of the first respondent Association -W.L.A. for the period 2011-2013 to be held on 20.04.2011 till the disposal of the suit; (ii) to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 11 (Office bearers of the first respondent Association – W.L.A.) from interfering with the activities of the first respondent Association - W.L.A., till the disposal of the suit; and (iii) to appoint two Commissioners to maintain the accounts and to look after the day today affairs of the first respondent Association, till the disposal of the suit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. All the four applications were taken up by the learned single Judge and after hearing the arguments of all the parties, the learned single Judge had dismissed O.A.No.331 of 2011 and A.No.1910 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011 and had passed a restricted order jointly in A.No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011 and O.A.No. 330 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011. No appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the injunction application filed against the Office bearers of W.L.A. in O.A.No.331 of 2011 and also against the order of dismissal passed in A.No.1910 of 2011, an application to appoint the Commissioner to conduct the day-to-day administration of the first respondent Association (WLA). The appeals have been directed only upon the orders passed in A.No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011 and O.A.No.330 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011. 10. Learned single Judge had passed orders in A.No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011 and O.A.No.330 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011, with the following directions. "(a) Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Advocate, 55 Law Chambers, is appointed as the Election Commissioner to monitor, supervise and conduct the elections to the Women Lawyers' Association. She shall be assisted by a Committee of 3 members viz., (i) Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam; (ii) Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi; and (iii) Ms.P.T.Asha, Advocates. (b)The Election Commissioners appointed by the Association shall hand over the files containing the applications of newly enrolled members along with the proofs submitted by them, to the Election Commissioner. The 24 receipt books handed over by the Election Commissioners in Open Court, shall also be taken by Mrs.Hema Sampath, the Election Commissioner. (c)The Election Commissioner and the Committee appointed above, shall scrutinise all the Application Forms of newly enrolled members and shall also scrutinise the receipt books and find out how many of them have been duly and properly enrolled in accordance with the bye-laws and how many of them have been improperly enrolled in violation of the bye-laws. (d) The Secretary of the Association shall hand over to Mrs.Hema Sampath, Election Commissioner, the list of eligible voters already prepared by the Association. The Secretary shall also take 4 xerox copies of such lists and hand over them to Mrs.Hema Sampath. (e) The xerox copies of the voters list handed over by the Secretary, shall be displayed in all the four Notice Boards of the Association along with a notice https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inviting objections from persons, about (i) the wrongful deletion of the names of any persons; (ii) the wrongful inclusion of the names of any persons; and (iii) any discrepancies if found. The notice issued by the Election Commissioner appointed herein and pasted in all the four Notice Boards shall clearly indicate that objections are to be filed with the Election Commissioner, within one week from the date of publishing of the notice. The notice may also indicate that the objections need not be confined to the individual grievances of the members lodging the objections, but may also be in respect of the wrongful inclusion or exclusion of the names of others, so that the correctness of the list of eligible voters could really be to be tested. (f) The Election Commissioner and the Committee appointed herein shall start scrutiny of the Application Forms of new members and find out the genuineness of the applications submitted by them, the genuineness of the document of proof enclosed to the application and find out whether such persons were eligible to be admitted as members. (g) The final list of voters may be published by the Election Commissioner and the Committee, on or before 30.04.2011. (h) The revised election schedule shall be as follows:- (1) Dates for filing nominations - 8th and 9th of June 2011. (2) Date for withdrawal of nominations – 10.06.2011. (3) Date for publishing the list of eligible contestants – 13.6.2011. (4) Date of the election shall be - 16.06.2011. (5) Date of counting shall be 18th and 19th June 2011. (6) Date of declaration of results- 19.06.2011. (i) The Election Commissioner shall also examine the complaints with regard to the en masse payment of subscriptions by the present office bearers and submit a report, on or before 25.4.2011, so that the action to be taken on these complaints could be examined before the date of filing of the nominations." 11. The appellant in O.S.A.No.115 of 2011 was aggrieved over the appointment of the Election Commissioners as directed in the order made in paragraphs 23(a) to (f). The appellant in O.S.A.No.116 of 2011 was aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O.A.No.330 of 2011 in C.S.No.243 of 2011 as detailed in paragraph 23. 12. However, the appellant in O.S.A.No.124 of 2011 was aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge which is directed in paragraph 23(c). The appellant in O.S.A.No.139 of 2011 was aggrieved against the order passed in A.No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011. 13. Therefore, we could see that the appellants in O.S.A.Nos. 115 and 116 of 2011 are sailing on the same boat whereas the appellants in O.S.A.No.124 of 2011 has supported the case of the appellants in O.S.A.No.115 and 116 of 2011 but required modification only in respect of paragraph 29(c) of the order. The appellant in O.S.A.No.139 of 2011 is entirely in a different stand which against the disallowing the relief made in A.No.1805 of 2011. 14. The foremost points emerged for discussion and for conclusion would be as to whether the Extraordinary General Meeting (E.G.M.) held on 28.02.2011 by the W.L.A. is in accordance with bye-laws governing the convening of meetings and a valid one. Incidentally, it is also to be seen whether it would confirm to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Even if the said Extraordinary General Meeting held on 28.2.2011 is a valid one, we have to find out as to whether the Returning Officers appointed by the general body held on 28.02.2011 were hand picked and are biased and whether they could be put in charge to conduct the election. Further, it is also to be seen whether there was any mal-practice or irregularity in the course of inclusion of members to the W.L.A. and any practice has been adopted by the Office bearers in paying the money and collecting the receipts in en bloc and the en masse inclusion of members was with the intention of gathering of votes in their favour. Further, whether the swelling of applicants for en masse enrolment in the Society W.L.A. would affect the election for the Executive Committee Members of W.L.A. 15. Furthermore, we have to decide as to whether the learned single Judge was justified in appointing Senior Counsel Mrs.Hema Sampath as the Election Commissioner and the three Committee Members viz., Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam, Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi and Ms.P.T.Asha for assisting the Election Commissioner in the place of Election Officers appointed by Extraordinary General Meeting of W.L.A. 16. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in O.S.A.No.115 of 2011 would submit in his arguments that the General Body was convened on 28.02.2011 on the resolution passed by the Executive Committee held on 27.1.2011 and in the said General Body Meeting the Election was scheduled to be conducted on 20.4.2011 and the Election Officers were also elected in a democratic way and thus, two Election officers were elected in the General Body and were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointed and the election process started from the date of the said General Body Meeting held on 28.2.2011 and it has to go on on and there cannot be any disturbance to the election which was decided by the General Body of W.L.A. held in accordance with its bye laws. He would also submit in his arguments that there was no dispute that the General Body Meeting held on 28.2.2011 and the plaintiff in C.S.No.215 of 2011 herself had participated in the said meeting and in her presence the Election Officers were elected and were appointed by the General Body and the relief sought for, by the said plaintiff as applicant in A.No.1805 of 2011 for appointment of some other two independent persons to conduct the election after declaring that the General Body held on 28.2.2011 was null and void, cannot be ordered. He would also submit that the relief sought for, by the said applicant is mutually contradictory and the plaintiff in C.S.No.215 of 2011 had suppressed the fact that she participated in the said General Body Meeting held on 28.02.2011 and therefore, the relief sought for, by her need not be granted. He would also submit that the learned single Judge had appointed Mr.Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel as Election Officer for conducting the election and three Election Committee Members namely Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam, Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi and Ms.P.T.Asha to assist the Election Commissioner cannot be sustained because the Election Officers elected by the General Body were replaced for no fault of theirs by the learned single Judge and therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. He would also refer to the contents governing the election of an Executive Committee of W.L.A. in Bye law No.20. He would also submit that the appointment of two Returning Officers would be sufficient if the Executive Committee had appointed them but in this case, the General Body itself had elected as in the previous year and therefore, the Election Officers who had obtained highest votes were appointed and therefore, it cannot be simply set aside by the learned single Judge. He would draw the attention of the Court that the General Body was convened on the basis of the resolution passed by the Executive Committee Meeting held on 27.1.2011 and it was immediately put up in the Notice Boards on 28.1.2011 of W.L.A and more than 21 days notice was given for the said General Body Meeting and it is valid in terms of Rule 21 of the bye laws of W.L.A. as well as the General Rules for convening the General Body Meeting under Rule 19 of the Bye-laws. He would further submit that there was no evidence to show that the Election Officers are hand picked and close friends of the present President and therefore, there is no necessity to deny them with the duty entrusted by the Extraordinary General Body of W.L.A. 17. Supporting the arguments advanced by Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in O.S.A.No.115 of 2011, Mr.Chitra Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant in O.S.A.No.116 of 2011 would submit in her arguments that for convening https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an Extraordinary General Meeting, the approval of the Executive Committee would be sufficient and accordingly, the Executive Committee Meeting was convened on 27.01.2011 and it had passed a resolution to convene the Extra-ordinary General Meeting on 28.02.2011 and proper notice was affixed in the Notice Board of W.L.A. and the same was also published in Dinakaran Newspaper as new item. Therefore, the Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting convened on 28.2.2011 was a valid one and nobody denied that there was General Body Meeting convened on 28.02.2011. She would further submit that even otherwise the applicant in A.No.1805 of 2011 in C.S.No.215 of 2011 namely Mrs.Jeya Rohini attended the said meeting and she subscribed her signature in Serial No.61 and she has not endorsed any