* fflGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Order decided on: 07.12.2011 + CS(OS) No.2209/2011. LA. No.14401/2011. LA. No.16455/2011. LA. No.17721/2011. LA. No.17797/2011 & LA. No.17798/2011 PAD AM KUMAR JAIN & ORS Plaintiffs Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Hetu Arora, Adv. versus SH. ALL INDIA SHWETAMBER STHANAKWASI JAIN CONFERENCE AND ANR Defendants Through Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harish V. Shankar, Adv. + AND CS(OS) No.2565/2011, LA. No.l6524y2011. LA. No.19099/2011 & LA. No.19100/2011 SANJIV JAIN Plaintiff Through Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav & Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, Advs. versus .ALL INDIA SWET AMBER STHANAKWASI JAIN CONFERENCE & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harish V. Shankar, Adv. for defendant No.2. Mr. A. Mishra, Adv. forD-3. CS(OS)Nos.2209/2011&2565/2011 PageNo.1 of 7 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified * Mr. Anurag Jain, Adv. for D-4. Ms. Anuradha Ariand, Adv. for defendants No.5 & 6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SEVGH MANMOHAN SINGH. J. (ORAL) 1. The first suit bearing CS(OS) No.2209/2011 has been filed by 7 plaintiffs against two defendants, for declaration and mandatory injunction. DefendantNo.l is a Society registeredunder the Societies Regist-ation Act on 26.03.1954. Defendant No.2 is the National President of defendantNo.l-Society. The plaintiffsNo.l to 4 are the Life Members of the Society; plaintiffNo.5 is the National General Secretary of the Society;plaintiffNo.6 isthe NationalYouthPresident,whileplaintiffNo.7 is theNationalExecutiveMemberoftheSociety. 2. The case of the plaintiffsis that as per the Rules and Regulations enforced, the existing tenure of the National Executive Committee cannot exceed its normal tenure since the National Executive and the office of the NationalPresidentare held by rotation so that representativefi-om every zone has equal opportunityto presideover tiie Society. It is specifically statedin the plaintthat the tenureof defendantNo.2 came to an end by an efflux of time on 21.06.2011. The said defendant No.2 was elected as NationalPresidenton 21.06.2009and as per the bye-laws,the office of the NationalPresidentis requiredto be held by rotation fi-om members fi-om each zone in the sequenceof zones specifiedin the Regulationsand Rules {Clause 12(b)}. CS(OS)Nos.2209/2011&2565/2011 PageNo.2 of 7 •J II 3. The further contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that on 21.06.2011 defendant no.2 and other office bearers of the National Executive Committee including plaintiffs No.5 to 7 ceased to be office bearers thereof by efflux of time. No meeting was held by the National ExecutiveCommitteeto extendthe term of the office by a furtherperiod of six months or less. However, on 26.06.2011, defendant No.2 chaired the National Executive Committee meeting and he extended his tenure by a period of six months. After the said meeting, defendant No.2 was ^pointed Vice-President,NationalGeneralSecretaryand SeniorAdvisory which is contrary to the bye-laws. 4. It is also stated that on 23.06.2011 defendant No.2 passed an order terminatingthe plaintiff No.5 from the post of National General Secretary without any reason or show-cause notice. Similar communications were issued for terminating plaintiff No.6 from the post of National Youth President and plaintiff No.7 from the post of National Executive Member and also Manav Sewa Yojana, President of Rajasthan. The other allegations are also made by the plaintiffs against defendant No.2 in the plaint which are mentioned in paragraphs29 to 34 thereof The following prayers have been sought in the suit:- "(a) Pass a decree of declaration that the proceedings of the National Executive Committee and the Managing Committee of the Defendant No.l as presided by the Defendant No.2 is illegal and void and contrary to the Rules & Regulationsof AU India Shwetamber Sthanakwasi Jain Conference and consequently all actions taken by the said bodies are void and nonest; (b) Pass a further decree of declaration holding that the conmiunication dated 23.06.2011 terminating the CS(OS) Nos.2209/2011 & 2565/2011 Page No.3 of 7 appointmentsof PlaintiffsNo.5 to 7 from the post of National General Secretary, National Youth President and National Executive Committee Manav Sewa Yojana, President of RajasthanState is illegal, void and beyond the power of the DefendantNo.2 and also contraiy to the Principlesof Natural Justice; (c) Pass a further decree of declaration that the action of the Defendant No.2 in appointing himself as the Chairman of the Board of Trusteesis illegal, null and void and contraryto the Rules and Regulationsof the DefendantNo.1-Society;and (d) Pass a further decree of mandatoryinjunctiondirecting that the Constitution of a Special Election Committee comprisingof respected & independentpersons from the Jain communitypreferablya Hon'ble Retired Judge of any High Court to direct the election body to undertake the exercise of electing the National President from eligible members from Zone 2 within a period of 90 days as provided under Regulations 12(5) (c) (i) (ii) (iii) thereof 5. Subsequent to this suit, one another suit bearing CS(OS) No.2565/2011 was filed by Sanjiv Jain against 6 defendants, for declaration andmandatoryinjunction. The facts statedm the plaintare almostidentical so as the prayer. It is pertinent to mention here that the factum of the earliersuit bearingCS(OS) No.2209/2011filed by the 7 plaintiffswas not disclosed in the second suit filed by Sanjiv jain. The learned Senior counselappearingon behalfof the plaintiffSanjivJain tried to justifythe conduct of the said plaintiff^alleging that he was not aware about the same. However,after comparingof the plaintsof the two suits, it appearsthat the said plaintiff was aware about the earliersuit, as para by para the second plaintis identical. This Courtis, hence, of the viewthatthe plaintiffSanjiv CS(OS)Nos.2209/2011& 2S6S/2011 PageNo.4 of 7 Jain in CS(OS) No.2565/2011 ought to have disclosed the factum of the earlier suit. 6. Though no written statements were filed by the defendants in both the suits, however, in the first suit, the defendants have filed various applications, inter-alia, LA. No. 17797/2011 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 CPC, and LA. No. 17798/2011 under Order VH, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint and directions. No replies to these applications were filed by the plaintifiFs. Both the matters were taken up together fiom time to time, as the parties were trying to resolve the main issue involved. 7. The main contentions of the defendants in the applications are that the plaintijSs are guilty of suppression of material facts and both the suits are gross abuse of the process of the Court. Various other allegations have been made by the defendants against the plaintiffs in the first suit bearing CS(OS) No.2209/2011. It is stated that plaintiff No.5 in the above-mentioned suit has filed a Vakalatnama on behalf of defendant No. 1 Organization, when admittedly as per the plaint, the plaintiffs No.5 to 7 were ceased to be the office bearers of the Organization, and as a matter of fact, one of the claims of plaintiff No.5 is to reinstate the said office bearers. Therefore, there is no justification on behalf of plaintiff No.5 to file the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Society. .8. It is also stated that the plaintiffs have been indulging in various acts, those are affecting the normal functioning of defendant No.l Organization. Not only that, plaintiff No.5 is stiU using the letter-head of the General Secretary of the Organization for stopping the publication of the Society's magazine, namely the "Jain Prakash", and he misrepresented to the offices CS(OS) Nos. 2209/2011 & 2S6S/2011 Page No.5 of 7 I of the DCP (Licensing) and the RNI by using the letter-heads fraudulently. The plaintiffs are also misusing the interim orders passed by this Court in the matters in a different way which are denoted by the plaintiffs by playing a fraud upon the Court without disclosing the facts of earlier suit. 9. When the matters were taken up for further proceedings from time to time on 30.11.2011, 02.12.2011 & 07.12.2011, both the parties have made their submissions on merits for some time and at the same time, they have also given their proposals, in order to resolve the issue involved. 10. Mr. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants has also referred the draft application filed under Order XXIll, Rule 3 CPC was drafted by the defendants for the purpose of recording the terms of the compromise between the parties. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs did not sign the said application, rather they have indulged in filing the false and frivolous suits which are not maintainable. 11. After discussion, as agreed by the parties, both the suits are disposed of^ on the following terms and conditions:- (a) The defendants undertake to hold elections for defendant No.l-Society on 04.03.2012 as per the Rules and Regulations applicable to the Society. (b) The elections shall be held on the basis of the approved list of Members as 33072 as well as the 1613 Members whose application forms have been checked/scrutinized. CS(OS) Nos.2209/2011 & 2565/2011 PageNo.6 of 7 V (c) The plaintiffs are free to participate in the elections. However, as far as the action already taken by the Society against plaintiffs No.5 to 7, the same will be considered on merits by the new Committee, as per the Rules and Regulations. (d) Ml". Justice J.D. Kapoor (Retd.) (16, Park Street, near RML Hospital, New Delhi, Ph.23093695,9871257474)is appointed as an Observer of the Special Election Committee who will undertake the elections to be held on 04.03.2012. His fee is fixed at Rs.1,00,000/-which shall be paid by defendant No.1. (e) The plaiatiffs will cooperate with the Special Election Committee as well as the Observer, and shall see that the elections are held in a trouble-free manner. (f) The plaintijSs will withdraw all the proceedings and representations which have been filed/instituted against the defendants including the representation dated 01.10.2011 filed by plaintiff No.2 with the DC? (Licensing) against the publicationof "Jam Prakash". Similarly,liberty as soughtby plaintiffs No.5 to 7 in CS(OS) No.2209/2011 is granted to challengethe decisionof the New Committeeif passed against them. 12. Both the suits and pending applications stand disposed of, with no order as to costs. t OHANSINGH,J? DECEMBER 07, 2011/ka CS(OS) Nos.2209/2011 & 2565/2011 PageNo.7of7