1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4005 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.3196 OF 2008 New Airways Travels (Delhi) Pvt Ltd. ..Plaintiffs Vs. Travel Agents Association & Ors. ..Defendants Mr.Y.R.Shah for Plaintiffs Mr.D.J.Khambatha Sr.Advocate with Mr. A.S.Doctor i/b Little & Co. for Defendants No.1, 2 & 13 CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 16TH, April, 2009 P.C.: The subject matter of the present suit is validity of the election to the Apex body of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is an Association of Travel Agents, whose views are stated to be taken into consideration by the Government and other agencies while formulating Tourism policies. The election of the 2 Managing Committee of Defendant No.1 was held on 11.10.2008 and the newly elected body has taken over the reigns of administration of the affairs of the Defendant No.1 since their election. This court has rejected the prayer for ad- interim relief and thereafter the present Notice of Motion is moved for hearing and final disposal. Various contentions are raised in the plaint with a view to challenge the validity of the election meeting and election held on 11.10.2008. It is stated that the election was held in chaotic atmosphere and persons not entitled to vote were permitted to vote so also persons who had right to caste vote were denied the right. The averments made in the plaint are denied by filing Affidavit in reply by the Defendants. Defendants have tried to point out that even after eliminating objected votes, still result of the election is in no way affected. It is then contended that an elected body cannot be injuncted from functioning as otherwise the same would lead to a situation wherein no one would be there to administer the affairs of the institution. Ordinarily an elected body cannot be restrained from functioning, more so when the elected body has take over the charge of office to which they are elected and more so when they are functioning over a period of time, as in the present case. There is no justification for allowing Notice of Motion. The balance of convenience is obviously not in favour of the Plaintiffs and would be in the favour of the Defendants, in as much as the Defendant No.1's 3 activities need to continue uninterruptedly. In the result as the plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case for grant of interim relief, Notice of Motion is dismissed. (A.P.Deshpande, J)