Original Application No.338 of 2011 in C.S.No.242 of 2011 V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J. This application has been filed by the applicants / plaintiffs seeking an order of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their men or agents from conducting any meeting in the nature of Annual General Body meeting, Extraordinary General Body Meeting, monthly second Sunday Meeting and Executive Council Meeting till the disposal of the main suit. 2. Heard, Mr.M.Suresh, learned counsel for the applicants/ plaintiffs and Mr.Thiageeswaran, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Waron & Sairams for the respondents/defendants. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants / plaintiffs would submit in his argument that the first applicant is the Union and the second applicant is the President of the said Trade Union and the suit has been filed by the applicants seeking for declaration that the first defendant , ceased to be the Secretary of the first plaintiff association, by virtue of the resolution passed on 5.2.2011 in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the first plaintiff conducted and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from conducting the Annual General Body Meeting allegedly for the first plaintiff and also to appoint a Commissioner to audit the accounts of the first plaintiff and to frame rules for the allotment of lands in the housing scheme for the members of the 1st plaintiff union as per the bye laws of the 1st plaintiff union. He would also submit that during the pendency of the suit this Court has granted an order of status quo against the respondents, however, the respondents have violated the orders and the Annual General Body Meeting was convened and resolutions were passed for holding election of the office bearers and the elections are scheduled to be conducted on 14.08.2011 and therefore, the status quo order passed by this Court may be made absolute by granting temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. He would further submit in his argument that the respondents / defendants have brought the financial status of the union to a very low level from the credit of Rs.50 lakhs and therefore, the accounts of the union / association should have been audited by a proper person to be appointed by this court. He would further submit that the first defendant, after the removal of his post as Secretary through a lawfully convened General Body Meeting held on 05.02.2011, cannot act as the Secretary of the Union / Association. Therefore, the first defendant cannot convene any meeting in the nature of Annual General Body meeting, Extraordinary General Body Meeting, monthly second Sunday Meeting and Executive Council Meeting. He would further submit that the first defendant did not also maintain the 'status quo' ordered by this Court and therefore, the interim order passed by this Court may be made absolute and a suitable person may be appointed for managing the assoication. He would also submit that the election fixed may be declared as null and void, since there was an order of status quo passed by this Court for convening the Annual General Body Meeting or Extra General Body Meeting also. Therefore, he would request the Court to grant temporary injunction against the respondents / defendants till the disposal of the suit. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit in his argument that the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants seeking for a declaration that the 1st defendant was removed from Secretaryship by the resolution dated 5.2.2011 and till it is made out in the suit, it cannot be found that the Secretary has been removed from the post and however, the second plaintiff who was acting as the President of the first plaintiff association was removed by the General Body Meeting convened on 13.02.2011 and from the said date, he was not entitled to act as the President. But he has filed the suit thereafter on 29.03.2011, which was numbered on 30.03.2011 and he has no 'locus standi' to maintain the suit. He would further submit that the second plaintiff has no power to represent the first plaintiff association and therefore, any order passed in his favour may not be effective and no order of temporary injunction can be passed against the respondents / defendants as the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit. He would further submit in his argument that the status quo order passed by this Court was to the effect of managing the affairs of the association and at that time, the defendants were continuing to be the office bearers of the first plaintiff association and the status quo was maintained by the respondents as Office bearers would not in any way invalidate the Annual General Body Meetings and any meetings conducted would not be violative of the order passed on 12.04.2011. He would further submit that the status quo order is very much maintained by the respondents and there is no violation of the said order. He would further submit that the election has been fixed and scheduled to have been done by virtue of the resolution passed in the Annual General Body Meeting, since the terms of the Office bearers have come to an end by the end of last month and it is the time for conducting election for the management of the first plaintiff association and therefore, there is no violation of the order passed by this Court. He would further submit that the second plaintiff cannot seek for any order before this Court on a suit which is not maintainable in law. The elections have been scheduled to be held on 14.08.2011 and that would not in any way affect the rights of the parties or members of the association and if it is ordered to be held not sustainable, a fresh election has to be scheduled and the parties contesting in this election would only contest in the said election also and the result will also be same and therefore, the election already scheduled to be held on 14.08.2011 may be permitted to be conducted. He would also submit that in the event of not permitting the election to be conducted, it will cause prejudice to the members as well as the first plaintiff association. He would further submit in his argument that if injunction is granted against the respondents, the entire management or affairs of the association would come to a stand still and therefore, the applicants cannot have any prima facie case to maintain his application. Therefore, he would further submit that the balance of convenience is also in favour of not granting any injunction against the respondents. He would cite a judgment of this Court reported in 1968 (1) Company Law Journals 75 (S.Krishnaswamy ..vs.. South India Film Chamber of Commerce) for the principles leading to the grant of interim injunction. He would, therefore, request the Court to dismiss the application. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The indisputed facts are that the second plaintiff, first defendant and second defendant were the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the first plaintiff association elected through an election held in the year 2009 for managing the affairs of the first plaintiff association. Dispute arose in between them and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff with certain allegations which are controverted by the respondents by filing counter in the applications. 7. As far as the case of the applicants is concerned, the first defendant / first respondent was said to have been removed from the Secretaryship on 05.02.2011 through a resolution passed in a General Body Meeting. Per contra, the defendants would submit that the second plaintiff was removed from the post of the President by virtue of a resolution passed in the General Body Meeting held on 13.2.2011. The mutual contentions are that both the plaintiff as well as the first defendant are not occupying the office on the date of filing the suit. On that basis, the applicants / plaintiffs have sought for an interim injunction against the defendants / respondents not to convene Annual General Body Meeting or Extra General Body Meeting , monthly second Sunday meetings and Executive Council Meetings. It is not disputed, except the second plaintiff and the first defendant, others were not removed from their respective posts. The plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking declaration that the first defendant ceased to be the Secretary of the first plaintiff association, vide resolution passed on 05.02.2011. But it could be decided only after a full fledged trial. It is the contention of the defendants that the second plaintiff was removed from the Presidentship on 13.2.2011 and he has no right to file the suit against the respondents. When the defence of the defendants are that the second plaintiff has no locus standi, it has to be shown that the plaintiffs have got right to file the suit, since they happen to be the plaintiffs. 8. However, this Court has granted a status quo order on 12.4.2011 against the respondents, to be maintained by them. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents the order was passed only for maintaining the status quo as office bearers in order to look after the affairs of the first plaintiff association. As already discussed, the removal of the first defendant could be decided only at the time of deciding the suit. Unless he is injuncted from exercising / discharging his duties as Secretary, it cannot be said that he cannot act as Secretary. On a careful understanding of the order passed by this Court on 12.04.2011, I could see the following directions issued by this Court. " In the meantime, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo." That means, the respondents shall not convene Annual General Body Meeting, Extra General Body Meeting, monthly second Sunday meeting and Executive Council Meetings. It cannot be presumed that maintaining 'status quo' means to maintain the official position in the first plaintiff association, since the prayer is not to seek for any injunction in respect of their official positions. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the 'status quo' order would be only in relation to the official positions of the respondents, is not sustained. However, Annual General Body Meeting have been convened by the respondents and the election dates have been fixed by the Annual General Body Meeting to be held on 14.08.2011, which is sheerly against the intention of the 'status quo' order passed by this Court on 12.11.2011. 9. The request of the applicants was to theeffect to pass an order of interim or temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit, from conducting any Annual General Body Meeting, Extra General Body Meeting, monthly second Sunday meeting and the Executive Council Meeting. If such an order is passed, the entire affairs or management of the association will be crippled. Merely because the removal of Secretary through a resolution dated 05.02.2011, and it has to be declared only in the suit and it cannot be said that the entire affairs of the association should be stopped. It is an admitted fact that the said association consists of more than 1000 members and the association has been formed for the welfare of such members. The judgment of this Court reported in 1968 (1) Company Law Journals 75 (S.Krishnaswamy ..vs.. South India Film Chamber of Commerce) would deal elaborately in respect of grant of temporary injunction, as far as the Societies registered under the Socieites Registration Act arevconcerned. The relevant passage, would run thus: "On the question of the balance of convenience and the threatened mischief or injury irreparable or otherwise, regard must be had to the nature of the suit and the particular right asserted like suits against Government, Public Corporations, Municipal Corporations, Statutory Bodies, Social clubs and its members, societies, registered under the Societies Registration Act and its members distinguished from limitation between private individuals. In the case of clubs and societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the general principles governing the right of suit of an individual shareholder or a member of the company would apply and ordinarily the Court will not interfere with the internal management of the society at the instance of one or some only of the members of the society subject to well recognised exceptions (1) where the impugned act is ultra vires of the Society, (2) the act complained of constitutes fraud, or (3) whether the impugned action is illegal. The rules are made by the Society itself for the convenience of its members for regulating their own conduct as members and for regulating the affairs of the society as an entity. 10. The aforesaid judgment of this Court would amply show that there could be no prejudice caused to the registered Society for its management and up-keeping its day to day affairs of the society. If for any reasons, the status quo order is continued, or any interim order is granted as asked for by the applicants, certainly the management and affairs of the Society will be stalled and no work of the association or union will be processed and certainly it would end in detriment to its members. Therefore, I could see the balance of convenience is only in favour of not granting any interim order. 11. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the election has been scheduled as fixed by the Annual General Body Meeting held by the association and therefore, the election as scheduled may be permitted to be held, otherwise the members of the society will be affected, and the association has spent a large money for the organisation of the election. Therefore, he stressed that the balance of convenience is in favour of permitting the respondents to conduct election as scheduled and fixed in the Annual General Body Meeting had by them, during the pendency of the suit. I have already dealt with the status quo order passed by this Court on 12.04.2011 and found that the status quo order passed by this Court on 12.04.2011 was in respect of holding any Annual General Body Meeting and other meetings. Therefore, the respondents / defendants ought to have refrained from conducting any meeting as directed by this Court. Contrary to that order, they have convened the said meeting and fixed the election, which is not sustainable. Therefore, I am not inclined to give my seal for the conduct of election scheduled to be conducted on 14.08.2011. 12. While this Court is not inclined to grant any interim order as asked for by the applicants in the application, the election fixed by the Annual General Body Meeting held during the subsistence of the status quo order passed on 12.04.2011 cannot also be permitted. Therefore, this Court, while dismissing the application filed by the applicant, is not authorising the election scheduled to be held on 14.08.2011. 13. With the aforesaid observation, the application filed by the applicants is dismissed and the status quo order passed by this Court is not extended. No order as to costs. 12.08.2011 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No mra/vsi V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J. mra/vsi Pre-delivery Order made in O.A.No.338 of 2011 in C.S.No.242 of 2011 12.08.2011