ELECTION-TEMPORARY INJUCTION U\O 39 r1&2
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 20 August 2010
This query is : Resolved
A society regd. under society reg.act,1860 in Delhi bye-laws of society do not disclose the manner and procedure of election of its governing body but president and gen.secy. of the same society and an other regd. society, without authority of its governing bodies appoint four returning officers cum observers therafter,they alongwith fourR\O CUM OBSERVERS decide to conduct the elections of both governing bodies that too allotting elections synmbol"JEEP'to one of group contesting elections and "CUP-PLATE' to other group for which only five persons of each society are representing to each group on single ballot papers and twoR\O CUM OBSERVERS out of four openly supported one group and issued appeals in their favour circulated handbills with their photographes and got the result of elections for both the societies to whom they are favouring. A suit for declaring result of said elections are chalenged among others on the ground of rigging in elections but trial court decline to grant temporary injuction and stated in its order the case is to be decided on merits. In nutshell,without going into merits refused to grant the temporary injuction.On the basis\strength of that order banker of both the societies allowed allegdlly winning group to operate the saving accounts of both the societes though ,in the same suit allegdlly winning group\defendants also file an applicaton u\o 39 r 1&2 for taking and handig over the charge of both societis and seeking directions for banker to allow them for operation of saving accounts(The fact of filling this application did not disclose the banker though banker was informed by the other group)In the mean time, two other R\O cum observers also in their written statement affirmed the facts of grievances of petitioner and suggesteted that "RE-ELECTIONS" should be held.Keeping in view of change in circumstances a fresh application u\o39 r 1&2 filled by petiioner the trial court re-affirmed its previous order and again disallow the petioner's application therafter allegedlly winning defendants lawyer on next date says their application u\o39 r 1&2 become infroctuous statement of lawyer is recorded and issues are framed now next date of hearing is 14\12\2010. please advise.You are further requested to provide any case law, if any on resembling facts of the case.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 21 August 2010
You file an appeal against the order disallowing the petition u/o 39 rule 1 before the appellate court and press for interim orders to maintain status quo to prevent further damage.
