Judgment : J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR, J. 1. These appeals are in pursuance of the orders of the apex Court in SLP. (Civil) Nos. 18245 and 18246 of 2005 dated 9.9.2005 and in I.A.Nos. 3 and 4 of 2005 and in I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2005 in S.L.P. Nos. 5656 and 5657 of 2005 dated 23.9.2005 and against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in Application Nos. 1043 to 1046 of 2005; 4801, 4802, 4904 and 4805 of 2005; 4803 of 2005; 4515 of 2005; 4685 of 2005 and 4821 of 2005 in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 dated 16.12.2005 in and by which, the learned single Judge after taking into cognisance of the order of the apex Court and also acting on the rival cases of the parties to the proceedings coupled with their respective arguments, with regard to disaffiliation of (1) U.P. Chess Association (Application No. 4515 of 2005) (2) All Kerala Chess Association (Application No. 4685 of 2005 (3) Rajasthan State Chess Association (Application No. 4821 of 2005) and four other Association and after answering issues framed therein pursuance of the rival contentions. Held that (1) Annual affiliation fees paid by 25 out of the 32 members to D.V. Sundar at Chennai is legal and in accordance with the bye-laws. (2) The decision of the Chair person (Justice A.K. RAJAN) dated 19.9.2005 in disqualifying (1) All Kerala Association, (2) Correspondence Chess Association (3) Chattishgarh Chess Association (4) Lakshwadeep Chess Association (5) Jammu & Kashmir Chess Association (6) Rajasthan Chess Association and (7) U.P. Chess Association is legal and in accordance with the consituation of AICF. (3) The Annual Affiliation fee for the year 20052006 to be paid on or before 31.3.2005 or else before the date of General Body Meeting is valid and vote in the election as fixed is in accordance with the bye-laws. (4) Appointment of D.V.Sundar as Secretary by N. Srinivasan on 3.2.2005 is valid and payment made to him only is in accordance with law and ultimately, dismissed all the applications referred to above. So much so, permitting the Karnataka Chess Association and Nagaland Chess Association on payment of subscription fee, by the Chairperson is permissible as per the Bye-Laws. 2. (4) Appointment of D.V.Sundar as Secretary by N. Srinivasan on 3.2.2005 is valid and payment made to him only is in accordance with law and ultimately, dismissed all the applications referred to above. So much so, permitting the Karnataka Chess Association and Nagaland Chess Association on payment of subscription fee, by the Chairperson is permissible as per the Bye-Laws. 2. Heard A.L. Somyaji, S.C. for T. Poornam in OSA No. 350/2005; T.V Ramanujan, Senior Counsel for R. Venkatavardhan in OSA No. 335 of 2005 and for petitioner in Cont. Petition in No. 103 of 2006 and R5 in O.S.A. No.9,17 of 2006; M. Muthusamy in OSA No. 9/2006; Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for N. Umapathy in OSA 17/2006 and N.S. Sivam for M/s. Sivam Sivanandaraj for R2 in all OSA; P.S. Raman Senior Counsel for P.R. Raman for R4 in OSA Nos. 335 of 2005; 9 of 2006 and 17 of 2006. 3. Points to be decided Sum and substance of the rival contentions of the parties to the proceedings are (a) Whether the decision of the chairperson (Justice A.K. RAMAN) dated 19.9.2005 in disqualifying (1) U.P. Chess Association (Application No. 4515 of 205) (2) All Kerala Chess Association (Application No. 4685 of 2005) (3) Rajasthan State Chess Association (Application No. 4821 of 2005) and four other Associations from participating in General Body Meeting is illegal and against the constitution of AICF. (b) Whether the decision of the Chairperson (Thiru Justice A.K. RAJAN) in rejecting the annual subscription paid by (1) U.P. Chess Association (Application No. 4515 of 2005) (2) All Kerala Chess Association (Application No. 4685 of 2005) (3) Rajasthan State Chess Association (Application No. 4821 of 2005) and four other Associations at Calicut is not in accordance with the bye-laws. (c) Whether the decision of the chairperson (Thiru Justice A.K. RAJAN) in payment of annual subscription only at Madras before D.V. Sundar, Secretary (Co-opted member) held to be valid, is not in accordance with the bye-laws. (d) Whether the payment of annual subscription fee made by 25 out of 32 members to D.V. Sundar at Chennai is not in accordance with the bye-laws. (e) Whether the decision of the Chairperson in allowing Karnataka Chess Association and Nagaland Chess Association to cast their vote on payment of subscription fee is impermissible as per the byelaws. (d) Whether the payment of annual subscription fee made by 25 out of 32 members to D.V. Sundar at Chennai is not in accordance with the bye-laws. (e) Whether the decision of the Chairperson in allowing Karnataka Chess Association and Nagaland Chess Association to cast their vote on payment of subscription fee is impermissible as per the byelaws. (f) Whether the Annual General Body Meeting dated 25.9.2005 fixed at Madras by N. Srinivasan is not in accordance with the bye-laws. (g) Whether the act of P.T. Ummer Koya, after he was injected to deal with the affairs of the association by a valid order, in handing over the records to P.K. Baskaran amounts to contumacious. (h) Whether the partial Meeting conducted by the supporters of Ummer Koya on 19.2.2005 is not in accordance with the bye-laws. (i) Whether the General Body Meeting held on 19.2.2005 by N. Srinivasan is valid in law. (j) Whether (1) U.P. Chess Association (Application No. 4515 of 205) (2) All Kerala Chess Association (Application No. 4685 of 2005) (3) Rajasthan State Chess Association (Application No. 4821 of 2005) and (4) P.T. Ummer Koya (Application No. 4803) are competent to question, disaffiliation of other four Associations namely, Correspondence Chess Association, Chattisgarh Chess Association, Lakshwadeep Chess Association and Jammu and Kashmir Chess Association by the Chairperson (Thiru Justice A.K. RAMAN) (k) When there is no materials placed with regard to the status, jurisdiction, capacity etc., of 23 members, namely, (1) All Assam Chess Association (2) All Bihar Chess Association (3) All Tripura Chess Association (4) All Jharkand Chess Association (5) Andaman Nicobar Association (6) Andhra Pradesh Chess Association (7) Chandigarh Chess Association (8) Central Revenue Sports Board (9) Delhi Chess Association (10) Goa State Chess Association (11) Gujarat State Association (12) The Haryana Chess Association (13) H.P. State Chess Association (14) Maghalaya Chess Association (15) The Manipur Chess Association (16) M.P. State Chess Association (17) Maharashtra Chess Association (18) Mizoram Chess Association (19) Orissa State Chess Association (20) Pondicherry State Chess Association (21) Punjab State Chess Association (22) Tamil Nadu State Chess Association and (23) West Bengal Chess Association for scrutiny by the appellants -whether it is proper for them to question their right of participating and voting in the general Body Meeting held on 25.9.2005 under the Presidentship of Chairperson Thiru. Justice A.K. RAJAN as per Apex Curt order, while the appellant Ummer Koya himself submitted a list of 30 Association including these 23 Associations to the Chairperson for consideration in the General Body Meeting. (l) Whether the submission of the appellants that the Chairperson (Thiru. Justice A.K. RAMAN) acted as per the statements of N. Srinivasan, amounts to contumacious one. (m) When there is no appeal against the order of the Division Bench in O.S.A.No. 65 and 72 of 2005 and became final whether the appellants are competent to raise the same issue now. (n) Whether the appellants (1) U.P. Chess Association (Application No. 4515 of 2005) (2) All Kerala Chess Association (Application No. 4685 of 2005) (3) Rajasthan State Chess Association (Application No. 4821 of 2005) were not aware of the publication dated 3.2.2005 issued by N. Srinivasan about the appointment of D.V. Sundar as Secretary and N.K. Mishra as Treasurer and also shifting of Head Quarters of the Association to Madras as per the bye-laws. 4. Settled Points Settled points crystallized from the order of the Apex Court by consensus of the parties and the order in C.S.No. 52 of 2005 dated in O.S.A. Nos. 65 and 72 of 2005 are (i) The second and Third defendant, namely, P.T. Ummer Koya and Soumen Majumar, are liable to face charges of misfeasance and malfeasance, to be tried by All India Chess Federation. (ii) The second and the Third defendant are injuncted from holding any post in the All India Chess Federation. (iii) The second and Third defendant are restrained from interfering with the day to day administration and activities of All India Chess Federation. (iv) The second defendant withdrew the sum of Rs.24,16,009/-in between 16.4.2005 to 5.5.2005 when the injunction order was stayed in OSA No. 72 of 2005 on 16.4.2005. No explanation offered by Ummer Koya for withdrawal of the said amount either in Appeal grounds or in his argument. (v) The parallel meeting conducted by the second defendant (P.T. Ummer Koya) on 9.2.2005 held to be invalid and in consequent of that the elected Members in that meeting were held to be invalid. (vi) Only 32 Associations opted for participating in the General Body Meeting held on 25.9.2005 as per the report of the Chairperson including 30 Associations listed by the second defendant. The appellants only in respect of 1. U.P. Chess Association, 2. (vi) Only 32 Associations opted for participating in the General Body Meeting held on 25.9.2005 as per the report of the Chairperson including 30 Associations listed by the second defendant. The appellants only in respect of 1. U.P. Chess Association, 2. All Kerala Chess Association and 3. Rajasthan State Chess Association questioned the election conducted by chairperson on 25.9.2005 after disaffiliated them from A.I.C.F. (vii) No relief sought for against 23 Associations in participating and voting in the General Body Meeting presided over by Chairperson (Thiru Justice A.K. RAJAN) on 25.9.2005. Hence participating and voting in the said election by the said 23 Associations become final/absolute, except questioning the rights of the Associations, namely, 1. Karnataka Chess Association and Nagaland Chess Association. (viii) The rights of said 23 Associations in participating and voting in the said election were not challenged. However, the appellants, questioned only in respect of participating and voting in the said election by the two Associations, referred above and sought relief against them. So, the said 23 Associations are also necessary parties to the proceedings as any order passed against them, would prejudice their rights. (ix) The disaffiliated Associations, namely, (1) Correspondent Association of India, 2. Chattisgarh State Chess Association, 3. Lakshadeep Chess Association and 4. Jammu & Kashmir Chess Association have not filed any appeal against the order of the chairperson (Thiru. Justice A.K. RAJAN). (x) Arithmetically, even if Appellants succeed in the Appeal, seven disaffiliated Associations would be affiliated and two affiliated Associations would be disaffiliated from All India Chess Associations, leaving only 30 Associations fit to participate in the General Body Meeting and the present elected Members would once again be re-elected in case of any election, as majority of 23 Associations have unanimously supported these elected Members only and thereby the appellants would ultimately fall in their attempt in entering into All India Chess Federation Body, in view of non asking any relief against 23 Associations, who have unanimously elected the present office bearers. (xi) The defendant, namely, P.T. Ummer Koya, written a letter to D.V. Sundar on 31.10.2005 at No. 62, Jawarhalal Nehru Stadium stating that he had handed over all the records to P.K. Baskaran, the newly elected Secretary of AICF on 21.02.2005 itself which fact was intimated by him to the Court in Application No. 1490 to 1492 of 2005, as per the decision of AICF General Body Meeting held under the Chairmanship of Advocate S.L. Harsh on 19.2.2005 at Chennai. (xii) In view of the fact that the election dated 19.2.2005 held at Chennai under the Chairperson of Advocate S.L. Harsh declared invalid as per the order of the learned Single Judge in Application No. 258 of 2005 in C.S.No. 211 of 2005 and the same was also confirmed by the Division Bench the possession of those records by P.K. Baskaran is without any authority and the same to be returned to the person ordered by the Court. (xiii) The following amounts have been drawn without proper account apart from meeting other administration expenses. Date of Cheque Cheque No. Amount 16.04.2005 147831 20,56,089.00 (by cash) 18.04.2005 038646 1,00,000.00 (by cash) 18.04.2005 038652 90,720.00 (by cash) 18.04.2005 038651 1,00,000.00 (by cash) 19.04.2005 038644 19,200.00 (by cash) 19.04.2005 038656 50,000.00 (by cash) Statement of Accounts of AICF with reference to State Bank of Travancore, Meechantha, Rishin Building, Nallalam P.O. - Branch Code : 70456 - Account No. 57005674949, Rs. 99,34,499.00 lakhs has been shown as debited and Rs.12,20,861.50 lakhs has been shown as balance amount between 25.02.2005 and 21.06.2005. Further, the Cheque No. 038653 dated 18.4.2005, shown as rent through cheque for Rs. 47,513. Whereas the Demand Draft was taken in the name of Nalini Chidambaram. Similarly, Cheque No. 038640 dated 18.04.2005, shown as rent through cheque for Rs. 10,75,647.00 whereas, the Demand Draft was taken for the said amount for live teleshow. The above visual irregularities found, require details. (xii) The important provisions of the Bye Laws of All India Chess Federation are relevant for the better appreciation of the case. “5. Head - Quarters : The Headquarters of the Federation shall be the place where the Honorary Secretary ordinarily resides. 11. Powers and duties of the Office bearers : 11.1. President : The President shall preside over the meetings of the General Body, Central Council, and of any Committee of which he is a member. “5. Head - Quarters : The Headquarters of the Federation shall be the place where the Honorary Secretary ordinarily resides. 11. Powers and duties of the Office bearers : 11.1. President : The President shall preside over the meetings of the General Body, Central Council, and of any Committee of which he is a member. In case of equality of votes, he shall have a casting vote. If, in the opinion of the President, any emergency has arisen which requires that immediate action should be taken, he may take such action as he deems necessary in consultation with the Hon Secretary and the Treasurer and report the same to the next meeting of the Council or General Body, whichever in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter. 11.3 Honorary Secretary: He shall be the Secretary to the General Body, the Central Council and all other committees of the Federation and shall exercise all the powers conferred on him by the General Body and the Central Council. He shall be in charge of the day-to-day administration of the Federation assisted by his Secretariat and will enter into all correspondence on behalf of the Federation and carry out the resolutions of the Central Council and the General Body. He will issue notices of meetings and record the minutes of the same and shall be responsible for their maintenance. He shall also be responsible for the maintenance of all other records and registers, as well as for the safe custody of the funds and the papers of the Federation. The Honoray Secretary shall be empowered to incur contingent expenditure of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) at a time. He shall also be competent to submit proposals to Government in respect of national and international Tournaments and also to appoint officials. The Honorary Secretary will be responsible for the preparation of budget, accounts and for the submission of annual re-ports and audited statement of accounts. He shall prepare and file with the concerned Registrar of Societies and other agencies such records, annual or other statements which are specified in the Registration Act and the rules. The Secretarial Staff will be under the direct control of the Hon. Secretary and the Hon. Secretary will be competent to appoint them as well as to take disciplinary action against them including termination of their service. 24. The Secretarial Staff will be under the direct control of the Hon. Secretary and the Hon. Secretary will be competent to appoint them as well as to take disciplinary action against them including termination of their service. 24. Vacancies Vacancies of office bearers that may arise by resignation, death or otherwise shall be filled by nomination by the President and the nominated person shall hold office till the next General Body Meeting. The next General Body Meeting shall elect in the prescribed manner any person from among the General Body to this vacant office for the remaining period, if any, of the full term.” The procedure for affiliation : Annexure I 2. Affiliation Fees. 2.1. Each affiliated member shall pay to the Federation an annual subscription as stipulated in the AICF Financial Regulations in force on or before 31st March of the year. Annual Membership fee of the Special Members and AICF Recognised Chess Academies shall be as stipulated in the AICF Financial Regulations in force and shall be payable on or before 31 March every year. If the affiliation fee/membership and other dues are not paid on or before the stipulated date such entities shall stand temporarily disaffiliated from the Federation as defaulters and such defaulters shall not be eligible for the rights and benefits affiliated members are entitled to till the dues are cleared with penal interest at the rate of 2% per month on the defaulted amount. 2.2. No affiliated member shall have the right to vote at any meeting of the Federation or of a committee, nor shall it have the right of nominating its players to take part in championships unless the dues have been paid atleast a fortnight before the Meeting/Championship/Event concerned. 5. Details of the pleadings in C.S.No. 52 of 2005 and other connected fats : Before dealing with the issues on hand, let us deal with the facts of the rival parties to the proceedings. For convenience, parties arrayed in C.S.No. 52 of 2005 is retained for discussion. 5.1 Tamil Nadu Chess Association (2) Delhi Chess Association (3) Maharashtra Chess Association are plaintiffs. Defendants are N. Srinivasan, P.T. Ummer Koya, Sowmen Mazumdar. Second defendant P.T. Ummer Koya is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 335 of 2005 in Application No. 4503 of 2005. For convenience, parties arrayed in C.S.No. 52 of 2005 is retained for discussion. 5.1 Tamil Nadu Chess Association (2) Delhi Chess Association (3) Maharashtra Chess Association are plaintiffs. Defendants are N. Srinivasan, P.T. Ummer Koya, Sowmen Mazumdar. Second defendant P.T. Ummer Koya is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 335 of 2005 in Application No. 4503 of 2005. The appellants, namely, (1) U.P. Chess Association (Application No. 4515 of 2005) (2) All Kerala Chess Association (Application No. 4685 of 2005) (3) Rajasthan State Chess Association (Application No. 4821 of 2005) are not parties to the civil suits. Hence they filed Application No. 4515 of 2005; 4685 of 2005 and 4821 of 205 to implead them as parties to civil suits along with others. 5.2 N. Srinivasan and Sowmen Mazumdar defendants 1 and 3 have not filed any appeal against the orders of the chairperson (Thiru. Justice A.K. RAJAN). 5.3 On account of certain disputes between some members of AICF, the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit against the defendants praying for. “(A) Permanent injunction restraining the Second and Third Defendants from holding any post in the All India Chess Federation till they are absolved of the charges of misfeasance and malfeasance. (B) Permanent injunction restraining the Second and Third Defendants from interfering with the day to day administration and activities of the All India Chess Federation in any manner and in any capacity. (C) Costs of the suit; (D) Such further or other orders as this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 5.4 The plaintiffs are the State Chess Associations of the States Tamil Nadu, Delhi and Maharashtra that promote, organize and control the game of Chess in their respective states. The plaintiffs are affiliated Members of the All India Chess Federation, shortly called as “AICF”, which, as the supreme Body controls the game of chess in India. The All India Chess Federation is in turn affiliated to Federation International Des Eches shortly called as ‘FIDE‘ that controls the game of Chess in the whole world. The plaintiffs are affiliated Members of the All India Chess Federation, shortly called as “AICF”, which, as the supreme Body controls the game of chess in India. The All India Chess Federation is in turn affiliated to Federation International Des Eches shortly called as ‘FIDE‘ that controls the game of Chess in the whole world. 5.5 The brief of the plaintiffs are as follows : The plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the second and third defendants form functioning in any post of office bearers of All India Chess Federation more so in the post of Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer as their various acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and siphoning of the funds of the All India Chess Federation, has resulted the future of the AICF itself in jeopardy. Further depicting that AICF suffers from financial crunch, the second and the third defendants improperly demanded that players should remit 10 percent of their prize money to the AICF. This had made the prominent players, Grand Masters and International Masters who have brought laurels to the Country to form “The Chess Players Association of India” (CPAI) along with other reputed players. The tournaments held at Visakapatnam, Pune and Delhi became disrupted because of the open protest by the players participating in the said Tournaments. The second defendant attempted to placate the players had to get out abruptly during the prize distribution function at Delhi as the players vociferously condemned that the second defendant is disrupting the game of Chess in India. Now it has come to light that the second defendant to cover up his acts of misfeasance and malfeasance had registered All India Chess Federation as if it is a newly formed Body at Calicut, when AICF is in existence from 1958. Taking advantage of their holding the respective posts of Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer for more than 16 years and 12 years respectively, the third defendant had facilitated the second defendant to siphon lakhs of Rupees causing extensive damage to the financial stability of the AICF. Any further continuance of second and third defendants in any posts of office bearers, more so as Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer in the administration of All India Chess Federation will make the AICF to go bankrupt. By his autocratic behaviour the second defendant crippled the functioning of State Associations. Any further continuance of second and third defendants in any posts of office bearers, more so as Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer in the administration of All India Chess Federation will make the AICF to go bankrupt. By his autocratic behaviour the second defendant crippled the functioning of State Associations. 5.6 All India Chess Federation is a Society registered under the Societies registration Act 1860 at Madras on 12.12.1958 bearing registration No.125/1098. With the enactment of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the All India Chess Federation is now regulated by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975. 5.7 As per the provisions of the Bye Laws of AICF the State Chess Associations in India are affiliated as its Members. The Chess Organizations having All India status and recognized Chess Academies are also eligible to be admitted as the member of AICF without voting rights, since the AICF exercises its jurisdiction over whole of India. The affairs of AICF is carried on by its Office Bearers, President, Honorary Secretary, Six Vice Presidents, Six Honorary Joint Secretaries and Honoaray Treasurer. The Executive Body of the AICF is the Central Council and it consists of Office bearers and one representative each from the affiliated state Associations. The General Body of the AICF is repository of all powers in regulating the functions of the AICF. As per the Bye Laws of AICF, the General Body has to elect its office bearers and to appoint its Auditors fixing their remuneration. The General Body has to consider and approve Annual Report, Audited statement of Accounts and Annual Budget. The General Body alone is conferred with the authority to acquire, hold, control, administer and dispose of the properties and the funds of the AICF. With 2/3rd majority of the Members present and voting, the Bye Laws of AICF can be amended and the quorum for the same shall not be less than 50 percent of the strength of the General Body. The General Body alone is conferred with power to grant affiliation to State Associations, to admit Special Members and to grant recognition to Chess Academies. The General Body alone is conferred with power to grant affiliation to State Associations, to admit Special Members and to grant recognition to Chess Academies. The Annual General Body Meetings of AICF has to be convened before 30th September of every year and Special Meetings of the General Body can be called at any time on the resolution of the Central Council, on the specific requisition in writing by 1/4th of the Members of the Central Council, by the Honorary Secretary in consultation with a Vice president and the Treasurer and by the President. 5.8 The office bearers, President, Vice President, Honorary Secretary, Honorary Treasurer and Joint Secretaries are elected for the tenure of four years. The Honorary Secretaries functioned from 1958 and not drawn any Honorarium and they discharged the functions of the post as service rendered to the game. The second defendant elected in 1989 as Honorary Secretary during his first term of office for 4 years did not draw any honorarium. In 1995 during his second term, the second defendant started to take honorarium, earlier stage in thousands and later in lakhs of Rupees. 5.9 In 2001 when election were scheduled for the posts of office bearers, the then President of AICF Dhruv M. Sawhney expressing that office bearers who had held the posts for 2 terms (8 years) continuously as per the policy decision of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports of Government of India, should pave way for new blood by not contesting the Elections. Though the second defendant also initially expressed that he was accepting the clarion call of Dhruv Sawhney contested for the post of Honorary Secretary. Some of the participants of the Meeting aware of the misdeeds of second defendant protested. This commotion made the AGM to get postponed. At the instance of second defendant the Andhra Pradesh Chess Association moved the High Court of Kerala and at the admission stage of Writ O.P.No. 27707 of 2001 the High Court on 19.9.2001 ordered that the postponed Meeting could be held at Kolkota. 5.10 Pursuant to the order of the Kerala High Court, the AGM of AICF was held on 13.10.2001 at the Taj Bengal, Kolkotta. A perusal of the entire recorded Minutes would establish barring item 17 (C) the second defendant had not recorded the deliberations of the General Body concerning all other subjects. 5.10 Pursuant to the order of the Kerala High Court, the AGM of AICF was held on 13.10.2001 at the Taj Bengal, Kolkotta. A perusal of the entire recorded Minutes would establish barring item 17 (C) the second defendant had not recorded the deliberations of the General Body concerning all other subjects. All Minutes of the central Council and Annual General Meetings of AICF were drawn by the second defendant as suited to him and circulated just before the next Meeting so that no one could intricately analyse the accounts in detail and expose his fraud and siphoning of funds. In the Minutes the item discussed or the views expressed by the participants and the final decision taken by the General Body he purposely omitted and were not recorded. This modus operandi is adopted to keep the Members in darkness. 5.11 Since the criminal charges of misappropriation of AICF Funds were not pursued for want of necessary materials, the second and third defendants became emboldened and started to loot the funds of AICF without any tangible limits. From its inception in 1958 none of the Honorary Secretaries of AICF drew any honorarium. The second defendant a Self Made Man without any formal educational qualifications started to rely upon AICF and other organizations of Chess for his livelihood. Without the sanction or approval of General Body the second defendant fixed Rs. 60,000/- as Honorarium during the financial year 1994-1995. Thereafter year after without any basis in the form of Honorarium the funds of AICF were looted without the approval or sanction of General Body of AICF. 5.12 Now the Doordharshan broadcasts clippings of the various games including of Chess in the Channels D.D.1 and D.D. Sports and for the same the Doordharshan gives substantive amounts to AICF to furnish such clippings. The clippings given to Doordharshan consist of foreign and Indian Chess Tournaments. For this no production cost is involved as the films are taken already and editing the same for the clippings have to be done. This source has become handy to enrich himself. The second defendant claims that 75 percent of the payment received from Doordarshan is spent as production cost. The production is done by Chess India Commerce owned by him. To camouflage this transaction details are not furnished and only ‘Income‘ and Expenditure are shown in the Balance Sheets. This source has become handy to enrich himself. The second defendant claims that 75 percent of the payment received from Doordarshan is spent as production cost. The production is done by Chess India Commerce owned by him. To camouflage this transaction details are not furnished and only ‘Income‘ and Expenditure are shown in the Balance Sheets. 5.13 Apart from the honorarium, the second defendant swindled lakhs and lakhs of Rupees of the funds of AICF as Office Expenses and Office Expenditures etc., 5.14 To make additional income, the second defendant has started “CHESS INDIA COMMERCE” and it is functioning in the above building “Chess India Complex”. Through this Chess India Commerce the second respondent is selling and giving on hire Digital Clocks, Electronic Key Boards and other instruments to State Associations and other organisers to conduct Tournaments. The Government Aid given to purchase necessary infrastructure to AICF which is grabbed in a systematic manner by the second defendant. The audit report exposes the fraud perpetuated by the second defendant on AICF with reference to office expenses, disbursement of salary to staff, Electric charges, expenses incurred from purchase of Air Conditioners, Computers, Printers, Fax Machine, Lazer Printer, Scanner etc. So much so, the second defendant engaged himself in printing, publishing and circulating the chess magazine by name “AICF FORUM”. 5.15 Further, the second defendant without any authority from rules claimed lakhs and lakhs of Rupees as Travelling Allowances, Dearnes Allowances and for Boarding and Lodging causing financial drain to All India Chess Federation. 5.16 Since the accounts of AICF are manipulated and cleverly camouflaged, the members of the AICF left in darkness would not pin point the misdeeds of second and third defendants. 5.17 During the last four years the second defendant had secreted under mentioned amounts from the funds of AICF; Sl. No. Nature of payments 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2006-2004 1. Honorarium to Honorary Secretary 1,80,000 2,16,000 2,59,000 3,10,000 2. Honorarium to AICF Forum Editor 84,000 1,20,000 1,44,000 1,72,000 3. Honorarium to Wehsite Editor - - 1,44,000 1,44,000 4. Computer Programmer 54,000 54,000 64,000 76,000 AICF 5. Web Master - 38,500 50,400 - 6. Conveyance 57,600 69,120 82,800 90,400 7. Personal Secretary to Honorary Secretary - 84,000 1,00,000 1,20,000 8. T.A./D.A. 2,23,953 6,79,753 5,41,758 8,16,811 In the year 2003-2004, the second defendant had siphoned Rs. Honorarium to Wehsite Editor - - 1,44,000 1,44,000 4. Computer Programmer 54,000 54,000 64,000 76,000 AICF 5. Web Master - 38,500 50,400 - 6. Conveyance 57,600 69,120 82,800 90,400 7. Personal Secretary to Honorary Secretary - 84,000 1,00,000 1,20,000 8. T.A./D.A. 2,23,953 6,79,753 5,41,758 8,16,811 In the year 2003-2004, the second defendant had siphoned Rs. 9,91,600/- as Honorariums, Conveyances and as Salary to his mythical Personal Secretary, besides the substantive loot of Rs. 8,16,811 as T.A. and D.A. Besides the Rs.18,09,371/-, the second defendant had siphoned substantive amounts as office rents, office expenses and other office expenditures and Rs.16.50 lakhs as cost of T.V. Production. 5.18 The Government of India gives Rupees Two Crores as Aid every year to the AICF to develop the game of chess and to meet the travel expenses of players participating in various international tournaments. No proper accounts are furnished by the second and third defendants for the above aid given by the Government except mentioning the aid amount as Income and reverse it as Expenditure. The second defendant further misused the funds of AICF in the purchase of 1200 copies of the book on Viswanathan Anand and the same was subjected to Audit. 5.19 The second defendant has engineered another means to shroud the financial irregularities committed by him. The AICF is a society registered at Madras in 1958 bearing registration No. 125/58. Now it is governed by the T.N. Societies Registration Act 1975. When the second defendant was elected as Joint Secretary in 1985 and subsequently elected as Honorary Secretary in 1989 the AICF had remained as registered Society at Madras and necessary statutory returns of the AICF had been filed by him as Secretary. Since the statutory requirements imposed under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act are onerous and there is every possibility of his misfeasance and misappropriation being exposed, the second defendant surreptitiously without any power and authority and without appraising or obtaining the concurrence of the General Body had registered “All India Chess Federation” as if it is a new society came in to existence in 1991 at Calicut. This fact was not noticed till the present suit is filed exposing the misfeasance and malfeasance of the second defendant. It is pertinent to note that the State of Kerala also enacted its own societies Registration Act akin to the Tamil Nadu Act. This fact was not noticed till the present suit is filed exposing the misfeasance and malfeasance of the second defendant. It is pertinent to note that the State of Kerala also enacted its own societies Registration Act akin to the Tamil Nadu Act. However the Kerala Act has exempted the City of Calicut from its provisions and the Central Act Societies registered at Calicut. Since the Central Act do not impose stringent conditions, the second defendant to cloak his misdeeds the registered the AICF second time suppressing the registration of the AICF at Chennai in 1958 and the said registration remains valid and subsisting. The second defendant to cover up his fraudulent acts had exposed the AICF for statutory reprimand. The Accounts and other Statutory Returns pertain to its Membership, Office Bearers, Amendment of Bye Laws etc. pertain to AICF have not been filed before the Registrar of Societies, Chennai North since 1991. The existence of an illustrious organization like the AICF is now at jeopardy. A genuine apprehension has arisen that the AICF the organization that controls the game of Chess in India may be declared as defunct by the Registrar of Societies, Chennai North because of illegal acts committed by the second defendant. 5.20 On 1.6.2004, the Annual General Body Meeting was held at Taj Palace Hotel, New Delhi. In Minutes of the Central Council and General Body drafted by the second defendant, what had taken place at these Meetings were suppressed and a totally different version concocted by the second defendant is mentioned. Even before the above Minutes of 1.6.2004 of the Central Council and Annual General Body had been approved at the subsequent Meetings held on 19.11.2004, the second defendant assuming himself as supreme authority directed that all the organizers of Tournaments to deduct 10 percent from the Prize Money from 1.6.2004 onwards and credit the same with AICF. In fact, the second defendant used by autocratic act deducted 10% of the price money from the docile association. 5.21 The first defendant by letter dated 15.11.2005 advised the second defendant to withdraw the deduction of 10 percent in Prize Money in view of the Memorandum submitted by the players and desist from precipitating the issue with Maharashtra Chess Association and to read out the contents of his letter at the Special Meeting of General Body so that the Members would know the feelings of their President. The second defendant showing scant respect did not place the letter of the President, the first defendant, at the Meeting and instead moved amendment of Bye Laws to clip the powers of the President, which has caused widespread dissent among the State Chess Association as well as the players. 5.22 The second and third defendant are merrily continuing with their illegal activities and are enriching themselves with the funds of AICF. In gross abuse of the Bye Laws of the AICF, the second defendant is misguiding the affairs of the AICF. The third defendant as Honorary Treasurer rendering himself as associate of the second defendant signs blank cheques and the audited Balance Sheets. Because of the improper acts committed by the second defendant the statutory status of the AICF as a Registered Society has become affected. Only a proper audit and investigation of the entire financial transactions of AICF for the last few years alone would bring to light the financial irregularities committed by the second and third defendants so that appropriate action can be taken against them. All the above remedial measures are possible only when the second and third defendants are removed from the posts of Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer and are permanently restrained from interfering with the affairs of the AICF. Only then the confidence of players Members and Public on AICF can be restored. The second and third defendants by their misfeasance and malfeasance have rendered themselves unfit to hold any post of Office Bearers in the AICF. Therefore they should not be allowed to continue in the Office to restore the confidence of the Members on the AICF. Further till they get fully absolved of the charges of misfeasance and malfeasance the second and third defendants have to be restrained by Permanent Injunction from contesting or holding any post in All India Chess Federation more so in the post of Honorary Secretary and the Honorary Treasurer. The first defendant as the President of the AICF who is conferred with ample powers by the Bye Laws of AICF can carry on the affairs of AICF making Ad hoc appointments and conducting fresh elections of the Office Bearers of AICF and the same will protect the interest of AICF. 6. The first defendant as the President of the AICF who is conferred with ample powers by the Bye Laws of AICF can carry on the affairs of AICF making Ad hoc appointments and conducting fresh elections of the Office Bearers of AICF and the same will protect the interest of AICF. 6. Claims and counter claims of the plaintiff and defendants and orders passed thereon: 6.1 In the said suit, the plaintiffs had sought interim relief by filling 1) O.A. No. 61 of 2005 seeking that P.T. Ummer Koya be restrained from acting as AICF representation and functioning as the Vice President of FIDE (World Chess Federation) and the Chairman of the Commonwealth Chess Association and 2) O.A.No. 62 of 2005 seeking that P.T. Ummer Koya and Soumen Majumdar be restrained from interfering with the day to day administration of AICF in any manner or capacity until the disposal of the suit. On 31.1.2005, the learned Single Judge pleased to pass exparte interim order in terms of the reliefs sought for in O.A. Nos. 61 and 62 of 2005. 6.2 On 3.2.2005, N. Srinivasan, President of AICF issued a circular to all Office Bearers/Affiliated Units of AICF nominating D.V. Sundar as the Secretary and Neeraj Kumar Mishra as the Honorary Treasurer against temporary vacancies till the next General Body Meeting. 6.3 Meanwhile P.T. Ummer Koya had filed Application Nos. 517 and 518 of 2005 to vacate the exparte interim orders dated 31.1.2005 passed in O.A.Nos. 61 and 62 of 2005 in C.S. No. 52 of 2005. 6.4 After hearing the rival contention, the learned single Judge passed the following order on 4.2.2005; “Until further orders, the Ist Respondent in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 shall not make any further appointment of office bearers for the All India Chess Federation and also shall not convene any Meeting. But, however, if any Meeting had already been convened, then decisions taken in such Meetings shall not be implemented until further Orders and posted the case to 7.2.2005.” 6.5 Subsequently a Meeting was convened on 19.2.2005 by Srinivasan, President. On the same day, a parallel Meeting was also convened by the Senior Vice President S.L. Harsh and elected office bearers without following any procedures. On the same day, a parallel Meeting was also convened by the Senior Vice President S.L. Harsh and elected office bearers without following any procedures. 6.6 Therefore, the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 thereafter filed another suit, namely, C.S.No. 211 of 2005 seeking the following reliefs : (a) Declaring that the Meeting claimed to be held at 12 Noon on 19.2.2005 by the supporters of the First Defendant (2nd defendant in C.S. No. 52 of 2005) was invalid and improper as per the provisions of the Constitution and Bye Laws of AICF and the legal requirements to convene such Meeting had not been adopted. (b) Declaring that the First (second defendant in C.S.No. 52 of 2005) Second, Third and Fourth defendants have not been elected in any post of office bearers of the All India Chess Federation as the General Body of the All India Chess Federation can elect any such office bearers to the All India Chess Federation only by its Annual General Body Meeting convened as per the Bye Laws. (c) Permanent injunction restraining the First Defendant (Second defendant in C.S. No. 52 of 2005) from holding any post or interfering in the affairs of the All India Chess Federation in any manner or any other capacity till he is absolved of his charges misfeasance and malfeasance. (d) Permanent injunction restraining the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants without authority of designation to interfere or cause any obstruction in the affairs and day to day administration and activities of the All India Chess Federation. (e) Cost of the Suit. (f) In C.S. No. 211 of 2005, the Plaintiffs had filed O.A. No. 258 of 2005 seeking to restrain the Defendants therein from interfering with the day to day administration and activities of AICF. 6.7 In that application (in O.A. No. 258 of 2005) after hearing the rival contention, the learned Single Judge passed the following orders on 7.3.2005 That P.T. Ummer Koya, (2) S.L. Harsh (3) P.K. Bhaskaran and (4) V.R. Bobba, the respondents 1 to 4 herein their men, agents, or representatives, be and are hereby restrained by an Order of interim injunction until further Orders of this Court from interfering with the day to day administration and activities of the All India Chess Federation in any manner and in any capacity. 6.8 Aggrieved by the order of interim injunction, P.T. Ummer Koya (2nd defendant) filed O.S.A. Nos. 65 and 72 of 2005 and the Division bench of this Court (dealt by one of us) passed interim stay on 16.4.205 and ultimately dismissed the said appeals on 5.5.2005 after hearing both parties. No appeal filed against this order and the same became final. 6.9 On 9.8.2005 the learned Single Judge while disposing of the various interlocutory applications passed a common order in Application in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 and C.S.No. 211 of 2005 namely, O.A.Nos. 61 and 62 of 2005 and O.A.Nos. 374, 517, 518, 1490 and 1492 of 2005 in C.S.No. 52 of 2005 and O.A.Nos. 258 of 2005 in C.S.No. 211 of 2005, the operative portion of which is set out below: “14. For the above two reasons and in my opinion the application for injunction made in O.A.No. 61 of 2005 is beyond the scope of the suit and as much cannot be ordered. Accordingly, O.A.No. 61 of 2005 seeking for an Order of interim injunction restraining the second respondent from acting as All India Chess Federations representative and functioning as the Vice President of FIDE and Chairman of the Commonwealth Chess Association is dismissed. 15. As regards the O.A. No. 62 of 2005, by virtue of the interim Order dated 31.1.2005, the second defendant was prevented from interfering with the day to day administration and activities of the All India Chess Federation in any manner and in any capacity. In exercise of the emergency powers, the President had convened a Meeting on 19.2.2005 at 11.30 a.m. and appointed D.V. Sundar and N.K. Mishra to coordinate with him for the day to day administration. Such exercise of powers was necessitated, as the Honorary Secretary and the Honorary Treasurer viz., the second and third defendants, were restrained by this Court from functioning as such. It cannot be disputed that the president, in exercise of his powers, could convene such a meeting and accordingly the Meeting convened at 11.30 a.m. on 19.2.2005 which was attended by atleast 47 members must be held to be in Order and in accordance with the bye-laws. On the contrary, the second defendant appears to have convened a General Body Meeting at 12.00 noon on 19.2.2005. On the contrary, the second defendant appears to have convened a General Body Meeting at 12.00 noon on 19.2.2005. No materials placed to show whether 21 days notice was given or the said Meeting was convened on emergency basis in the absence of the President. My attention was also drawn that the notice of the Meeting said to have been convened by the second defendant was sent only be certificate of posting. It should be noted that certificate of posting is only a proof of service. It was also brought to my notice that the second defendant, after the Orders of injunction granted by this Court on 31.1.2005, has operated the bank accounts and withdrawn cash. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the election of the Secretary or other office bearers in the Meeting held at 12.00 noon on 19.2.2005 convened by the Honorary Secretary. However, for the purpose of the charge, in paragraph 8 of the common counter affidavit filed by the Honorary Secretary by name P.T. Ummer Koya in A.Nos. 1490 to 1492 of 2005, it is stated that he has handed over the records to the newly elected Secretary by name P. Bhaskaran on 21.2.2005. From the above fact, as today, the second defendant is not holding the post of Secretary. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to maintain the status quo as on today and in this context I am not inclined to vacate the interim Order granted in O.A.No. 62 of 2005, as ultimately this Court has to consider the interest of the federation rather than the interest of the office bearers. Accordingly, interim Order granted on 31.1.2005 in O.A.No. 62 of 2005 is made absolute. For the same reasons, interim injunction granted on 7.3.2005 in O.A. No. 258 of 2005 is also made absolute. 16. For theforegoing reasons, though the Central Council is competent to consider the alleged allegation of misfeasance and malfeasance against the second defendant and take action, considering the fact that the General Body, which is the superior authority, itself is to meet before the end of September, 2005, I am of the considered view that the issue shall be considered by the General Body itself. Accordingly, the President shall convene the General Body giving 21 days notice for the conduct of election of office bearers. Accordingly, the President shall convene the General Body giving 21 days notice for the conduct of election of office bearers. For the purpose of convening the General Body Meeting, he can take the assistance of the two members nominated by him viz., D.V. Sundar and N.K. Mishra. The above two members are entitled to act and assist the President for the purpose of the convening of the General Body Meeting. The General Body Meeting shall be held under the supervision of Hon‘ble Mr. Justice A.K. RAJAN, a retired Judge of this Court, who shall be paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards remuneration”. 6.10 The aforesaid order was challenged by the second defendant (in O.A. No. 62 of 2005 in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 and O.A. No. 258 of 2005 in C.S. No. 211 of 2005) namely, . P.T. Ummer Koya in O.S.A. Nos. 177 and 178 of 2005 before this Court. The Division bench of this Court by an order dated 23.8.2005, while upholding the order dated 9.8.2005 had issued further following directions : “17. …. Though we are upholding the order of the learned Judge, in order to protect the interest of both the parties, the appeals are disposed of in the following terms:- (a) The second defendant (it should be 1st defendant ) in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 viz., the President of the association shall convene the General Body Meeting by giving 21 days notice for the conduct of the election of office bearers. (b) The President shall chair the meeting in his capacity as President of the Association without seeking any assistance of D.V. Sundar and N.K. Mishra; (c) The President is bound by any directions that may be given by the Hon‘ble Mr. Justice A.K. RAJAN, who shall have power to supervise the convening of a General Body Meeting. (d) It is open to the Hon‘ble Mr. Justice A.K. RAJAN, who shall have power to supervise the convening of a General Body Meeting. (d) It is open to the Hon‘ble Mr. Justice A.K. RAJAN to give appropriate directions, if the circumstances so warrant, about the convening of the General Body Meeting, and conduct of election of office bearers ; (e) It is open to the Appellant and others to contest in the ensuing elections and if they are elected in the General Body Meeting, the interim orders granted by the learned Judge as against the Appellants and other contesting defendants will not be operative and they would be free to discharge their duties of the post to which they are eventually elected. 18. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.” 6.11 Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench in O.S.A. Nos. 177 and 178 of 2005 dated 23.8.2005 P.T. Ummer Koya filed Civil Appeal Nos. 5656 and 5657 of 2005 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18245 and 18246 of 2005 before the apex Court and upon hearing the arguments of the rival parties, the apex Court, after taking note of the orders of the learned single Judge dated 4.2.2005 and also the order of the learned single Judge dated 9.8.2005 as well as the order of the Division Bench dated 23.8.2005 passed the following order on 9.9.2005. “In these appeal, we need not go into the merits of the respective contentions since the learned counsel for the parties have adopted a fair approach and substantially on their consent, in the manner indicated hereunder, the directions of the Division Bench are being modified : For the conduct of election of office bearers, notice in terms of the decision of the High Court has been issued by Sreenivasan to be held on 25th September, 2005. That meeting would not be chaired by Sreenivasan but would be chaired by Justice A.K. RAJAN who, in case of dispute, would decide as to who is entitled to cast the vote. Copies of all the notices issued by Sreenivasan shall be handed over to Justice A.K. RAJAN forthwith. Justice A.K. RAJAN will decide as to whether it is necessary to issue any further notice to any of the Association. The dispute, if any, regarding qualification/disqualification for the purpose of participating in the conduct of election on 25th September, 2005, would be decided by Mr. Justice A.K. RAJAN. Justice A.K. RAJAN will decide as to whether it is necessary to issue any further notice to any of the Association. The dispute, if any, regarding qualification/disqualification for the purpose of participating in the conduct of election on 25th September, 2005, would be decided by Mr. Justice A.K. RAJAN. Further, in case of equality of votes, it if becomes necessary to cast a casting vote, Sreenivasan would be permitted to cast such casting vote but the result in respect of the post for which such a casting vote is cast would not be declared. Dispute has also been raised on behalf of the appellants as to the venue of the meeting to be held on 25 the September, 2005. It would be open to Mr. Justice A.K. RAJAN to hold the meeting at the venue, as already decided, or to change it. The decisions taken in the meting by Justice A.K. RAJAN would be subject to further orders that may be passed in the suit. Justice A.K. RAJAN, after the conduct of the meeting, would send the report along with entire material to the Court. It would also be open to Justice A.K. Rajan to change, if it becomes absolutely necessary, the schedule of election already fixed but under no circumstances the date of election shall be changed.” 6.12 In pursuance of the order of the apex Court, the chairperson, after receiving nomination for various posts and upon perusing their jurisdiction thereon, disaffiliated seven Associations, namely, (1) All Kerala Chess Association, (2) Correspondence Chess Association (3) Chattishgarh Chess Association (4) Lakshwadeep Chess Association (5) Jammu & Kashmir Chess Association (6) Rajasthan Chess Association and (7) U.P. Chess Association, from FEDA, as they have not paid their subscription as per the bye-laws. 6.13 Thereafter, the appellants, namely, Ummer Koya and Uttar Pradesh Chess Association filed I.A. Nos. 03and 04 of 2006 and I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2006 respectively in S.L.P. Nos. 18245 of 2005 and 18246 of 2005 before the apex Court to intervene and sought the following reliefs. 1. Direct that the nominees of the Appellant Association be allowed to attend the General Body Meeting and cast their vote; 2. Direct that the nomination of Prabhat Chaturvedi to the post of President and Deepak Saigal to the post of Joint Secretary be accepted and they be allowed to contest in the forthcoming elections; 3. 1. Direct that the nominees of the Appellant Association be allowed to attend the General Body Meeting and cast their vote; 2. Direct that the nomination of Prabhat Chaturvedi to the post of President and Deepak Saigal to the post of Joint Secretary be accepted and they be allowed to contest in the forthcoming elections; 3. Appoint a retired Judge of this Hon‘ble Court to convene and conduct to General Body Meeting and conduct the elections; 4. Direct that the election be re-scheduled to a later date so that the voter list as well as the list of candidates eligible to contest be finalized by the appointee of this Hon‘ble Court. 5. Pass such other and/or further order(s) and/or direction(s) as maybe deemed just and proper. 6.14 The apex Court after hearing the rival contentions, passed the following order on 23.9.2005. “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appropriate course to seek redressal of the Appellants grievance would be to move an appropriate application in the suit and challenge the elections that are likely to be held on 25th September 2005, and raise all the questions in the objections before the High Court. The results declared would be subject to further orders that maybe passed by the High Court in the suit aforesaid. We are neither inclined to stay the declaration of the result of the elections likely to beheld on 25th September 2005, nor to restrain the elected persons from taking over the affairs of the Federation. However, we direct the expeditious disposal of the objection that maybe filed by the aggrieved parties before the High Court in the suit. The validity of the election shall be decided in the suit expeditiously, but, in any case, not later than 25th September 2005. In case the dispute as to the election is raised before the High Court and it is not decided by 25th December 2005, the newly elected Body will have no right to continue after the said date till the matter is adjudicated by the High Court. In case the dispute as to the election is raised before the High Court and it is not decided by 25th December 2005, the newly elected Body will have no right to continue after the said date till the matter is adjudicated by the High Court. If any of the parties does not cooperate and tries to protract the proceedings before the High Court, it will be open to the High Court to pass such orders as it deems fit against that party.” 6.15 Subsequent to the order of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the Meeting of AICF was held on 25.9.2005 and the elections were held to the AICF. The following were declared elected as office bearers. (I) 1. N. Sreenivasan was elected as President 2. Mr. D.V. Sundar was elected as Honorary Secretary 3. Mr. Bharat Singh was elected as Honorary Treasurer (II) 1. F. Anil 2. Melwin 3. Narendera Kumar Mishra 4. UdayanKanti Gosh 5. Vipnesh Bharatwaj were elected as Joint Secretaries. All the above mentioned were elected without any contest. (III) 1. Baktavatchalam 2. Dongre 3. Pradeep Jain 4. Rochunga Ralte 5. Samir A. Salgocar 6. Sanjeev Kumar were elected as Vice Presidents. 6.16 Against the election result, P.T. Ummer Koya (Appellant in O.S.A.No. 335 of 2005) field Application No. 4803 of 2005 in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 along with other application for following orders : a) To declare that the election of the following persons i) N. Srinivasan ii) D.V. Sundar iii) Bharath Singh iv) Sanjeev Kumar v) Samir A. Saalogocar vi) Pradeep Jain vii) Dongre viii) Cochunga Ralte ix) Bakvatchalam, x) Neeraj Kumar Mishra xi) Dr. Vipnesh Bharatwaj, xii) Melvin Khryiem, xiii) F. Anil xiv) H.K. Tiwari, xv) Udan Kanthi Gosh as office bearers of the All India Chess Federation in the General Body Meeting held on 25.9.2005 under the chairmanship of His Lord Ship Justice A.K. RAJAN is null and void and set aside the same. b) Direct fresh elections to be conducted by convening a General Body Meeting as per the bye laws, giving right to vote to the following affiliated units 1. All Kerala Chess Association 2. Correspondence Chess Association 3. Chattisgarh Chess Association 4. Lakshadeep Chess Association 5. Jammu& Kashmir Chess 6. Rajasthan Chess Association 7. Uttar Pradesh who have got a right to vote in the General Body Meeting of the All India Chess Federation. All Kerala Chess Association 2. Correspondence Chess Association 3. Chattisgarh Chess Association 4. Lakshadeep Chess Association 5. Jammu& Kashmir Chess 6. Rajasthan Chess Association 7. Uttar Pradesh who have got a right to vote in the General Body Meeting of the All India Chess Federation. c) To appoint a retired Judge of Hon‘ble Supreme Court to convey and conduct and Chair the General Body Meeting for conducting the Election of office bearers of All India Chess Federation. d) To direct the Ministry of Sports and Youth affairs and Sports Authorities of India to appoint two officials to assist the Hon‘ble Judge of the Supreme Court (Retired) in convening the General Body Meeting for conduct of election to the office bearers of All India Chess Federation. e) For an order of Injunction restraining the elected office bearers from in any way, taking and policy decisions or decisions in administrative matters in respect of All India Chess Federation, either under the guise of convening any central council Meeting or Extra Ordinary General Meeting or Annual General Body Meeting of the federation or in any other manner or whatsoever until further orders of this Hon‘ble Court. f) For an order of injunction restraining the persons claiming to be the elected office bearers of the AICF on 25.9.2005 from in any way amending the bye-laws of the All India Chess Federation. g) Gant an order of injunction restraining the persons who claim to have been elected on 25.9.2005 from in any way taking any steps to recognize either Nagaland or Karnataka as affiliated units of All India Chess Federation pending further orders of this Hon‘ble Court. h) For an order of injunction the person who claim to have been elected on 25.9.2006 from in any way permitting the rival Associations in Andhra pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, claiming to be affiliated members of the All India Chess Federation to take part in the affairs of the federation. h) For an order of injunction the person who claim to have been elected on 25.9.2006 from in any way permitting the rival Associations in Andhra pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, claiming to be affiliated members of the All India Chess Federation to take part in the affairs of the federation. i) Direct the chairperson to be appointed by this Hon‘ble Court to fix the venue of the General Body Meeting of the All India Chess Federation for the purpose of conduct of election of office bearers at the neutral place other than the place at Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Delhi, Kerala, Andhra, Rajasthan and thus render justice.” 6.17 Similarly the appellants (1) U.P. Chess Association (Application No. 4515 of 2005) (2) All Kerala Chess Association (Application No. 4685 of 2005) (3) Rajasthan State Chess Association (Application No. 4821 of 2005) have filed petition seeking relief to implead them as parties in C.S. No. 52 of 1005 along with common relief sought for by the appellant namely, Ummer Koya, (OSA 335 of 2005) 6.18 Upon hearing the rival contention of the parties to the proceedings, the learned single Judge by his order dated 16.12.2005 held that the election conducted by chairperson on 25.9.2005 is valid in law and also justified the order of the chairperson in disqualifying the seven Associations, namely, (1) All Kerala Chess Association, (2) Correspondence Chess Association (3) Chattishgarh Chess Association (4) Lakshwadeep Chess Association (5) Jammu & Kashmir Chess Association (6) Rajasthan Chess Association and (7) U.P. Chess Association, in participating of the election for the reasons given thereon and ultimately, dismissed all the applications. Hence these appeals. 7. Determination of issues : 7.1 The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the financial year as defined in the constitution is from 1st April of the current calendar year to 31st March of the next calendar year. The subscription for the year 2005-06 would be paid on or before 31.03.2006. The bye-laws do not contemplate advance payment of annual subscription and therefore, the seven Associations could not be recorded as defaulter even assuming as on the date of election. Whereas, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that annual subscription fee has to be paid according to the calendar year, which fact is evident from the letter dated 01.03.2004 sent by Thiru. Whereas, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that annual subscription fee has to be paid according to the calendar year, which fact is evident from the letter dated 01.03.2004 sent by Thiru. P.T. Ummer Koya Honorary Secretary (II defendant) to the various associations requesting them to pay the renewal fee of the year 2004-2005 on or before 31.3.2005 positively and as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is bereft of any merits. (a) In this context, it is useful to refer to the meaning of calendar year and financial year as defined under Article 1 of All India Chess Federation Constitution (Bye Laws). (b) Article 1 (t) defines Calendar year and Article 1 (u) defines financial year. (c) Calendar year shall mean the period of 12 months from 1st January to 31st December. (d) Financial year shall mean the period of 12 months from 1st April to next 31st March. (e) It is also useful to refer the Article 2.1 and 2.2 to answer Article1 of the Constitution. (f) Article 2.1 There is a special reference i. e. “shall be payable on or before 31st March every year”. (g) The same article refers that 1 “Annual Subscription as stipulated in the AICF Financial Regulations in force, on or before 31st March of the year. (h) The said reference, namely, “the year” and “every year” would mean and include the calendar year only. The very meaning of “financial year” refers only financial matters referable to Income Tax Purpose. (i) The Income Tax Act is referable to financial year only i. e. for the period of 12 months from 1st April to 31st March. The matter other than income tax, shall be referable to calendar year only including payment of yearly subscription. (j) Inthis context, only, this appellant/II defendant namely, P.T.Ummer Koya sent a letter dated 1.3.2004 to all the affiliated associations calling upon them to pay the renewal fee for the year 20042005 at the revised date on or before 31st March 2004 positively. (k) The letter dated 1.3.2004 reads as follows : “To : All the Affiliated Units/Special Members / Recognised Academies Sub : Renewal of Affiliation Fees / Special Membership Fees /Academy Recognition Fees. (k) The letter dated 1.3.2004 reads as follows : “To : All the Affiliated Units/Special Members / Recognised Academies Sub : Renewal of Affiliation Fees / Special Membership Fees /Academy Recognition Fees. All Affiliated Units / Special Members / Recognized Academies and others concerned are hereby informed that as resolved by the Central Council at its meeting held on Ist February, 2004, the Affiliation fee, Special Membership fee and Recognition fee payable to AICF have been revised as given below with immediate effect. Existing Revised Affiliation fee Rs. 2000.00 Rs.3000.00 Special Membership fee Rs. 18000.00 Rs.20000.00 Recognition fee Rs.18000.00 Rs.2000.00 A copy of the updated Financial Regulations is also attached. Please be informed that the fees for renewal for the year 2004-2005 shall be remitted at the revised rate on or before 31st March 2004 positively. For All India Chess Federation sd/- P.T. Ummer Koya Hon. Secretary. Encl : Copy of the Financial Regulations” (1) This letter makes it clear that the appellant Ummer Koya understood the legal position clearly but contended otherwise before this Court for the sake of contention. If the submission of the counsel for the appellant is accepted, it would lead to an anomalous position that the eligibility of the members, who attended the General Body Meeting held on 25.9.2005 could be decided only after 31.3.2006. If the members participated in the Annual General Body Meeting and voted on 25.9.2005, ultimately failed to pay the subscription on or before 31.3.2006, all the decisions taken and election conducted would become invalid. (m) If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is in order, then the appellant P.T. Ummer Koya in the letter dated 1.3.2005, should have requested all the affiliated to pay the renewal fees on or before 31.3.2005 according to the financial year and should not have asked them to pay the same on or before 31.3.2004 according to the calendar year. (n) Having taken a specific stand in the letter dated 1.3.2004, it is not open to the appellant P.T. Ummer Koya that the payment of affiliation fee should be according to the financial year. So, we are of the considered view that the payment of affiliation fee should be according to the calendar year only and not otherwise. Both the Chairperson Thiru. So, we are of the considered view that the payment of affiliation fee should be according to the calendar year only and not otherwise. Both the Chairperson Thiru. Justice A.K.RAJAN and the learned single Judge have rightly held this issue that the payment of affiliation fee is only according to the calendar year and rejected the appellants contention. So, we are of the considered view that this contention is bereft of any merit and the same is rejected. 7.2 The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the subscription paid at Calicut by the Associations at Calicut is valid as per the bye-laws. (a) Whereas the learned counsel for the Plaintiff took our attention to Article 5 of the constitution and submitted that the Headquarters of the Federation shall be the place where the Honorary Secretary ordinarily resides. (b) The facts on hand would reveal that on 3.2.2005, President Mr. Srinivasan, co-opted D.V.Sundar and N.K. Mishra as Secretary, Treasurer. This fact was also confirmed by the President in his letter dated 3.2.2005. (c) It was informed through a letter to P.T. Ummer Koya that, “In view of my decision to appoint D.V. Sundar as Secretary, may I request you to kindly hand over all the records and other materials of the Federation to D.V. Sundar and assist in the smooth functioning of the Federation in the interest of the game and in compliance of the order of the High Court”. This letter was sent by the President Srinivasan in view of the injunction order passed by the Court restraining P.T. Ummer Koya not to interfere with the affairs of All India Chess Association. Similar letter was sent to third defendant Sowmen Majumdhar. The appointment of the said co-opted office bearers is also widely published in the English paper. The continuation of the appointment of the co-opted Members and Vice President, D.V. Sundar was sent by letter dated 7.2.2005 to all the affiliated units informing them to send all communications to the following address. “D.V. Sundar, Hon. Secretary, All India Chess Federation 4th Floor, Dhun Buildings, 827, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. Tel : 044-28521526 Fax : 044-28520702 Mobile : 094440-18698 Email : indianchessfed@hotmail.com”. “D.V. Sundar, Hon. Secretary, All India Chess Federation 4th Floor, Dhun Buildings, 827, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. Tel : 044-28521526 Fax : 044-28520702 Mobile : 094440-18698 Email : indianchessfed@hotmail.com”. (d) The letters sent by the President on 3.2.2005 and letter dated 7.2.2005 sent by D.V. Sundar coupled with Article 5 of the constitution would amply prove that the Headquarters is only at Chennai and not at Calicut. It is an admitted fact that 32 Associations including 30 Associations listed by the appellant and Sowmen Majumdhar have expressed their willingness to participate in the General Body Meeting held on 25.9.2005. Factually, except seven disaffiliated Associations by Chairperson, all of them paid the subscription only at Madras to D.V. Sundar, as per the letter dated 7.2.2005. It is not the case of the said seven disaffiliated Associations that they have not received any communication dated 7.2.2005 nor had they aware of the fact that the Honorary Secretary, namely, D.V. Sundar is stationed only at Chennai. None of them have disputed the said letters sent, not only by the President but also the Honorary Secretary of All India Chess Federation. Paper publication regarding the appointment of the said co-opted office bearers was also not disputed by the appellant. Therefore, the Head-quarters of AICF and the Secretariat after the appointment of D.V. Sundar as Secretary are at Chennai. It is also a fact that the defendants 2 and 3 were injuncted from interfering with the affairs of All India Chess Federation by the order of the High Court dated 31.1.2005. The appointment of the said co-opted office bearers by Srinivasan was in pursuance of the power vested with the President as per Article 11.01 and 24 of the Constitution. It is useful to refer the Article 24 of the Constitution. 24. Vacancies Vacancies of office bearers that may arise by resignation death or otherwise shall be filled by nomination by the President and the nominated person shall hold office till the next General Body Meeting. The next General Body Meeting shall elect in the prescribed manner any person from among the General Body to this vacant office for the remaining period, if any, of the full term. The next General Body Meeting shall elect in the prescribed manner any person from among the General Body to this vacant office for the remaining period, if any, of the full term. (e) In this case, vacancy does not arise by the act of resignation or death but taking into consideration the post of Honorary Secretary became inoperative, in view of the fact of injunction order passed against the second defendant Ummer Koya, the President has got every right to appoint Honorary Secretary under the clause “otherwise” to assist the administration to fill up the vacuum created by the order of the Court injuncting P.T. Ummer Koya from acting as Secretary from interfering with the affairs of the AICF as President. Moreover, Natarajan cannot take the role of the Honorary Secretary and discharge the function. (f) As ondate, appointment of Sundar as Honorary Secretary in the place of second defendant Ummer Koya was not stayed by any order of the Court and in these circumstances, any amount paid at Calicut and any receipt given by the Accountant at Calicut office is not legally valid. Both the Chairperson Thiru Justice A.K. RAJAN and the learned Single Judge have rightly dealt with this point in that line and negatived the contention of the appellant. There is nothing to interfere with their finding and accordingly, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is rejected. 7.3 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that seven disaffiliated Associations, namely, (1) All Kerala Chess Association, (2) Correspondence Chess Association (3) Chattishgarh Chess Association (4) Lakshwadeep Chess Association (5) Jammu & Kashmir Chess Association (6) Rajasthan Chess Association and (7) U.P. Chess Association, have paid the Annual Subscription fees on 10.3.2005; 1.6.2005; 3.6.2005; 10.3.2005; 6.7.2005; 31.5.2005 and 12.6.2005 respectively at Calicut in the year 2005-06 and they have furnished the receipts of payment for the same to Thiru Justice A.K. RAJAN before 14.9.2005. Whereas AICF, without taking note of the said payment, disaffiliated the said Associations from the Membership of AICF and prevented them from taking part in the General Body Meeting held on 25.9.2005, which is illegal and the same is invalid. Whereas AICF, without taking note of the said payment, disaffiliated the said Associations from the Membership of AICF and prevented them from taking part in the General Body Meeting held on 25.9.2005, which is illegal and the same is invalid. 7.4 The facts on hand show that the dispute arose in respect of the administration of AICF, lead to filing of civil suits and consequent of that, the second defendant P.T.Ummer Koya, Honorary President, and the third defendant were prevented from interfering with the affairs of the administration of AICF as per the order of the High Court dated 31.5.2005. The said injunction order was temporarily stayed by the order of the Division Bench in O.S.A.Nos. 65 of 2005 and 72 of 2005 dated 16.4.2005 and the same was vacated and the said appeals were dismissed on merits on 5.5.2005. That means the injunction order was not in force between 16.4.2005 to 5.5.2005. Injunction order was not in force before 31.1.2005. Injunction order passed against the said defendants was made absolute by the order of the learned single Judge on 9.8.2005 and the same was also confirmed by the Division Bench on 23.8.2005. Though the second defendant approached the Apex Court on two occasions i.e. 9.9.2005 and 23.9.2005, the injunction order passed against defendants 2 and 3 was not disturbed. At the same time, the appointment of co-opted members, namely, Sundar and Mishra made by the first defendant, Srinivasan was also not disturbed by any order of the Court. Though the Apex Court has taken cognizance of the appointment of the co-opted Members referred to above by the first defendant, N. Srinivasan, the Apex Court has not prevented them from discharging the duty as per the constitution of AICF in view of the right of appointment by the first defendant, N. Srinivasan, as per the Constitution by exercising power conferred under Rule 11.01 of the bye-law of the constitution. (a) Even according to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the said payment was not made either before 31.1.2005 or between 16.4.2005 to 5.5.2005. The said payment was made only when the injunction order was in force against the defendants 2 and 3. (a) Even according to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the said payment was not made either before 31.1.2005 or between 16.4.2005 to 5.5.2005. The said payment was made only when the injunction order was in force against the defendants 2 and 3. Therefore, the receipt books in the custody of the second defendant P.T. Ummer Koya cannot be used by any of his men and agents or Accountants, who have singed the receipt, are also the persons injuncted by the restraint order. Therefore, any receipt issued by those persons at Calicut is non-est in law. (b) All the affiliated units of the AICF had the knowledge of the orders passed by the High Court and also the appointment of Sundar as Secretary. As per the bye-laws, the Head-quarters of the Association is the place where the Secretary ordinarily resides. Therefore, the Head-quarters of AICF and the secretariat after the appointment of Sundar as Secretary, are at Chennai. Under those circumstances, any amount paid at Calicut and any receipt given by the Accountant at Calicut office is not legally valid. (c) Apart from that, International Chess Federation (FIDE) have recorgnised the appointment of the said persons by N. Srinivasan and permitted them to have correspondence with them. The said letter dated 30.3.2005 is addressed not only to the President N. Srinivasan but also N.K. Mishra. The letter was also communicated to permanent delegate to FIDE Bharat Singh Chahan. In fact, the said letters were addressed to the President and co-opted Members, only at Chennai address. Similarly on 15.5.2005 also, FIDE has sent a letter to Srinivasan, President of AICF. The contents of both the letters are relevant to the facts on hand. “Dear Sir, I have investigated the matters connected with the All India Chess Federation on 30th March 2005. A 4-member delegation headed by D.V. Sundar, the Secretary of the All India Chess Federation had talks with me at Doha. After detailed discussions and questions related to the affairs of the Indian Chess Federation concerning the matters that have taken place in India in recent months, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one federation known as the All India Chess Federation and that is headed by N. Srinivasan as President and D.V. Sundar as Honorary Secretary. After detailed discussions and questions related to the affairs of the Indian Chess Federation concerning the matters that have taken place in India in recent months, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one federation known as the All India Chess Federation and that is headed by N. Srinivasan as President and D.V. Sundar as Honorary Secretary. In future all matters concerning Indian Chess should be dealt with D.V. Sundar, the Honorary Secretary of the All India Chess Federation. Sundar has agreed that the election of office bearers will be held before the end of 30 September 2005 as per the constitution of the All India Chess Federation. The key office bearers of the All India Chess Federation are President N. Srinivasan 4th Floor, Dhun Building, 827, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. Hony Secretary D.V. Sundar 82 Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Chennai - 600 003. Email : indianschessfed@hotmail.com indianchessfed@rediffmail.com. Tel :91-44-25368698; Mobile:91-9444018698 Treasurer : Neeraj Kumar Mishra 82 Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Chennai - 600 003. Permanent Delegate to FIDE : Bharat Singh Chauhan 149 Dhaka Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi 110 009. Email : delhichess64@yahoo.com. Tel :91-9810000007 with regards, sd/- Khalifa Mohamed-AL-Hitmi FIDE Continental President for Asia” letter dated 15.5.2005 “Dear Mr. Srinivasan Decisions of the FIDE presidential Board Meeting held on Doha, Qayar, 14-15 May 2005. The FIDE Presidential Board Meeting held in Doha, Qatar, made the following decisions with regard to the All India Chess Federation :- 1. The FIDE Presidential Board accepted the recommendation of the Continental President of Asia Khalifa-Ali-Hitmi to recognise the administration led by your good-self as President. In the manner, FIDE recognizes the Principal office bearers D.V. Sundar and N.K. Mishra as the Hon. Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the All India Chess Federation. 2. That the All India Chess Federation shall have the authority to organize the Asian Continental Championship in August. The All India Chess Federation shall further advise FIDE on the dates of the Asian Youth Championship and the World Youth U16 Olympiad. 3. The FIDE requested and the All India Chess Federation agreed to transfer its right for the organization of the World Youth Championship 2006. 4. The WGM title awarded to Ms. Eesha Karavade shall be referred to the Qualification Commission which shall investigate and report to the FIDE Presidential Board. 3. The FIDE requested and the All India Chess Federation agreed to transfer its right for the organization of the World Youth Championship 2006. 4. The WGM title awarded to Ms. Eesha Karavade shall be referred to the Qualification Commission which shall investigate and report to the FIDE Presidential Board. We sincerely thank you and your colleagues for the excellent work you have put in selflessly for the development of Chess in India. We assure you that FIDE and its officials look forward to a warm relationship with your administration. Yours sincerely sd/- Ignatius T. Cong. General Secretary” So, the fact is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that FIDE has also recognized the appointment of co-opted Members, namely, D.V. Sundar and N.K. Mishra as Honorary Secretary and Treasurer respectively and N. Srinivasan, President of AICF. (d) Similarly, the players sponsored through P.K. Baskaran were not given any recognition since such sponsorship was not valid according to the Constitution of AICF. Though P.K. Baskaran, in the capacity of Honorary Secretary of All Kerala Chess Association, addressed a letter dated 31.12.2005 sending the participants of Kerala State Team in the National U-13 Chess Championship, the organisers of the said Chess championship, have not given any recognition for such sponsorship and rightly rejected the said list sent by the said Secretary. The letter dated 8.1.2006 by P.K. Kabeer, Manager, Kerala State Team to the Secretary, All Kerala Chess Association is relevant to the facts on hand. “Respected Sir, Sub : Report of team manager of Nidhisha, player of U-13 Boys and Girls Chess Championship. As directed by you I had companied Nidhisha the Kerala Chess player who is selected to be played in the U-13 Boys and Girls Chess Championship scheduled to be held at St. Thomas Church School, Howrah from January 4 to 12, 2006. When I had presented the entry of Nidhisha along with tournament fee one Bharat Singh shouted at me and refused to allow my player to participate in the said tournament. Bharat Singh had also said that he has no respect to the court orders in the case of O.S.A. 330/2005 pending before the High Court of Madras. I had shown him the Court orders and told him that he is also a party to the said proceedings. He also refused to note or recognize our presence in the tournament hall on January, 3, 2006. I had shown him the Court orders and told him that he is also a party to the said proceedings. He also refused to note or recognize our presence in the tournament hall on January, 3, 2006. We had also met Chief Arbiter Chatterjee R.C. and Joint Secretary of AICF, Udaya Kanti Ghosh. Those persons also reiterated the same stand taken by Bharat Singh. We had to return from the venue of the said championship on the next day without participation.” (e) Moreover, the second defendant himself admitted about the appointment of D.V. Sundar and Mishra as Secretary and Treasurer with effect from 3.2.2005, which fact is culled out from para 23 of the affidavit in Application Nos. 517 of 2005 and 518 of 2005 dated 4.2.2005. It is useful to refer to the submission of the second defendant, which reads as follows : “I submit that the I Defendant had appointed D.V. Sundar and N.K.Misra as the Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the Federation from 3.2.2005.” Such appointment of the President is according to the bye-laws only. (f) Apart from that, the Income Tax authorities have also recognised the functioning of AICF at Chennai and sent the communication to Chennai address only. (g) In fact, the Income-Tax authorities at Kozhikodu have sent a letter dated 12.1.206 to the President, who is having Head-quarters at Chennai, calling upon them to be present on 31.1.2006 at 11.30 a.m. in connection with the proceedings of the Income Tax Act in the case of All India Chess Federation, Nallalam, Calicut. (h) The said communication also would prove that the All India Chess Federation is functioning only at Chennai and not in any other place. In view of the fact that appointment of Sundar and Mishra is valid as per the bye-laws of AICF and the same was recognised by FIDE, which fact was also admitted by the second defendant in the Court proceedings, any payment made by the said association at Calicut instead of paying the same at Chennai to the said Honorary Secretary Sundar is not valid as per the Constitution of AICF and should face disaffiliation from AICF. All these seven associations, even after knowing fully well that Ummer Koya would not act as Secretary and as per the rules his residence is not at the headquarters and no Secretariat can function at Calicut, yet they have chosen to pay the annual subscription deliberately at Calicut. Under those circumstances, the payment of annual subscription at Calicut would show that they were not willing to accept or obey the orders of the Madras High Court. This means, inasmuch as the seven Associations have not paid the annual subscription to the validly appointed Secretary at Chennai within the time prescribed under the rules and the Bye-laws, these seven Associations as per the rules, stand temporarily disaffiliated. Temporary disaffiliation is automatic on non-payment of annual subscription within the time prescribed. (i) Both the chairperson Thiru. Justice A.K. RAJAN and also the learned Single Judge have rightly dealt with this point in that line and disaffiliated these associations from AICF due to non-payment of annual subscription fee for the reasons stated therein, we concur with the findings as there is no error for interference. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is rejected. 7.5 The learned counsel further contended that the appointment of co-opted Members, namely, Sundar as Honorary Secretary, N.K. Mishra as treasurer is against the Bye-Laws and as such, their appointment shall not be recognised. We have already made detailed discussion with regard to their appointment in the earlier paragraphs and hence, this contention is also rejected. 7.6 The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that convening of General Body Meeting on 19.2.2005 by Srinivasan, first defendant and giving effect to his earlier appointment dated 3.2.2005 with reference to the Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer, is violative to the order of the High Court dated 4.2.2005. In this context, it is useful to refer to the order of this Court dated 4.2.2005 to find out as to whether there is any truth in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. 7.7 The order of the learned Single Judge in Application Nos. 517 and 518 of 2005 dated 4.2.2005 reads as follows : “Until further orders, the 1st Respondent in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 shall not make any further appointment of office bearers for the All India Chess Federation and also shall not convene any meeting. 7.7 The order of the learned Single Judge in Application Nos. 517 and 518 of 2005 dated 4.2.2005 reads as follows : “Until further orders, the 1st Respondent in C.S. No. 52 of 2005 shall not make any further appointment of office bearers for the All India Chess Federation and also shall not convene any meeting. But, however, if any meeting had already been convened, then decisions taken in such meetings shall not be implemented until further Orders.” On fact, there was no appointment made by the first defendant after 4.2.2005 and no decision was also taken in the meeting held on 19.2.2005. In fact, in the said meeting, they have discussed about the High Court order, since the appointment of the said co-opted office bearers dated 3.2.2005 was not stayed by the order dated 4.2.2005. The said office bearers have right to function as Honorary Secretary and Treasurer respectively as per the Bye-Laws of the Constitution of AICF. (a) So, we are of the considered view that the meeting convened by the first defendant Srinivasan on 19.2.2005 cannot be stated to be invalid as per the order of the High Court dated 4.2.2005 referred to above. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is also rejected. 7.8 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Secretaries of the State Chess Association and Nagaland Chess Association have been disaffiliated from the AICF for certain lapses committed by them and as such, allowing them for voting is illegal. The record would show that the Karnataka State Chess Association of which B.S. Somanath was the President and its Secretary K. Somanath, were disaffiliated. The Annual General Body Meeting constituted ad hoc Committee directing it to cooperate with the Administrator appointed by the Government of Karnataka and hold elections to office Bearers within six months. The record would show that the Karnataka State Chess Association of which B.S. Somanath was the President and its Secretary K. Somanath, were disaffiliated. The Annual General Body Meeting constituted ad hoc Committee directing it to cooperate with the Administrator appointed by the Government of Karnataka and hold elections to office Bearers within six months. (a) In the Annual General Meeting, held on 2nd August 2003 the Karnataka State was represented and under item 21 the following decision was taken ; “Item No. 21 considered the status of the ad hoc committee constituted for conducting the affairs of the Karnataka State Association and resolved that as the ad hoc committee with the following members failed to perform the duties entrusted to them, no extension be granted to the committee.” The Special Officer appointed by the Government to the Karnataka State Chess Association conducted elections on 31.1.2005 and New Office Bearers were elected and assumed charge. They had paid the affiliation fees for the year 2005 and are therefore entitled to participate in the General Body Meeting fixed on 25.9.2005, nominating its two Representatives. Similarly, as per the records of the AICF, the Nagaland Chess Association was allowed to participate in the Annual General Body Meeting till 2001 and thereafter the said Association did not participate. The GB of the AICF had not disqualified and disaffiliated the Nagaland Association. The State Association paid the Annual subscription for 2005 and on being pointed out, had paid all arrears of the subscription for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. There are no arrears of affiliation fees and hence as per AICF Law the Nagaland Chess Association is eligible for voting. (b) The narration of events would show that these associations are fit to vote in the General Body Meeting held on 25.9.2005 The Chairperson Thiru Justice A.K. RAJAN has also dealt with this aspect in that line and accordingly, allowed them to participate in the voting. We do not find any error committed by the Chairperson. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. We do not find any error committed by the Chairperson. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. 7.9 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Chairperson Thiru Justice A.K. RAJAN has wrongly recognised Gangadhara Rao and Kanna Reddy as the President and Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Chess Association instead of Bobba and Vijayasarathy, who were appointed in the Extra Ordinary General Body Meeting convened on 15.5.2005 and as such, allowing them to participate in the voting is against law. (a) We have gone through the factual events brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the first defendant along with the findings of the Chairperson and we are satisfied that recognizing Gangadhara Rao and Kanna Reddy as President and Secretary of Andhra Pradesh Chess Association respectively by the Chairperson is according to the Bye-Laws of the Constitution and hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is rejected. 7.10 The learned counsel for the Appellant further brought to our notice about the payment of subscription fee by certain associations at Calicut, who were allowed to participate in the voting, which exposes bias attitude of the Chairperson and hence, submitted that disaffiliation of the above said seven Associations due to non-payment of subscription fee only at Calicut is violative to the principles of natural justice. (a) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any substance in view of the fact that the Chairperson appraised the entire records in detail and found that these seven Associations alone have paid subscription fee for the relevant period at Calicut violative to the Courts order while other 25 Associations have paid the subscription fee only at Chennai to D.V. Sundar, Honorary Secretary, AICF whose head-quarters is at Chennai. (b) The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the bank account of AICF was not transferred from Calicut to Chennai so far. The Application Nos. 1491 of 2005 in C.S.No. 52 of 2005 filed by Srinivasan, President of AICF, namely first defendant in the said suit, in March 2005, seeking directions for allowing D.V. Sundar and N.K.Mishra to jointly operate the bank Accounts of AICF and submit monthly statement of Income and Expenditure to the High Court. The said application is pending even now. 1491 of 2005 in C.S.No. 52 of 2005 filed by Srinivasan, President of AICF, namely first defendant in the said suit, in March 2005, seeking directions for allowing D.V. Sundar and N.K.Mishra to jointly operate the bank Accounts of AICF and submit monthly statement of Income and Expenditure to the High Court. The said application is pending even now. In such circumstances, there is no question of opening bank account at Chennai and operating the same at Chennai. (c) It is already held that the appointment of Honorary Secretary and Treasurer by the President is according to the Bye-Laws of the Constitution. Receiving annual subscription at Chennai does not depend on functioning the bank account at Chennai. If the Secretary has been residing at Chennai and he receives the money, he has to show the accounts of those money received by him. For that purpose, he may open Bank Account and operate and if the Central Council does not approve the Bank Account, the entire amount can be transferred to any bank account authorised by the Central Council. (d) In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has no merits and accordingly, the same is rejected. 7.11 The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that AICF Registered No. 125 of 1958 being represented by the first defendant has become defunct with effect from 7.12.2005 causing gazette publication as per clause 44(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and therefore, the first defendant has no locus standi to contest this appeal. P.S. Raman, senior learned counsel for P.R. Raman, representing the All India Chess Federation (Registration No. 125/58) submitted that in pursuance of the direction of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 1645 of 2006 dated 21.3.2006, the appeal preferred by them dated 25.1.2006 was allowed by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai 28 and their status under the said Act has been restored. The order of the learned single Judge reads as follows : “5. In the light of the above position, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to dispose of the 4th respondents appeal dated 25.1.2006 on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. In the light of the above position, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to dispose of the 4th respondents appeal dated 25.1.2006 on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No. 1859 of 2006 is vacated. Consequently, W.V.M.P.No. 385 of 2006 is allowed, W.P.M.P.No. 1859 of 2006 is dismissed and all other W.P.M.Ps are disposed of on the above terms”. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendant at the time of argument was not confronted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is bereft of merit and the same is rejected. 7.12 The next point for consideration is as to whether the defendants 1 to 4 in C.M.P.No. 20739 of 2005 are liable to be punished for contempt of Court as they deliberately and wilfully violated the undertaking given by them on 23.12.2005. “P.S. Raman, learned senior Counsel for AICF submitted that all the seven associations which were disaffiliated will allowed to participate in all the Tournaments on the same fees which is payable by the players from the affiliated Associations and they will not be discriminated vis-vis the players from the affiliated associations”. In view of the fact that the above appeals have been taken for final disposal and decided on merit, the said undertaking would merge with the main application and as much, miscellaneous petitions have no merit at this stage. Moreover no arguments were placed by any one in this regard. (a) Even now, the appellants have not chosen to recognise D.V. Sundar as Honorary Secretary and come forward with the payment of affiliation fee at Chennai though the said appointment was recognized by all forums. It is held that payment of affiliation fee at Calicut by the appellant is violative to the Bye-Laws of the Constitution of AICF. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly. 7.13 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the subscription fee made by 25 Associations out of 32 is not in accordance with the Bye-Laws as the Bank account was not transferred from Calicut to Chennai. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly. 7.13 The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the subscription fee made by 25 Associations out of 32 is not in accordance with the Bye-Laws as the Bank account was not transferred from Calicut to Chennai. It is to be noted that these 25 Associations now referred to by the appellants is very much available in the list given by the second defendant to the Chairperson. Further, he cannot plead that the subscription fee made by those Associations to D.V. Sundar at Chennai is not in accordance with the Bye-Laws as they are not parties to these proceedings, and any order passed against them will prejudice their right in view of the principle laid down in the decision in Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club AIR 2005 SC 592 . 7.14 Further, it is to be noted that other four disaffiliated associations referred to above have not filed any appeal and objected the order of the Chairperson. So these appellants cannot plead for these disaffiliated Associations also as they have not obtained any power from them to appeal against the order of the Chairperson. 7.15 Then the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the first defendant submitted that though the injunction order was in force against Defendants 2 and 3, under the guise of the minutes of parallel General Body Meeting held on 19.2.2005 presided over by the representative of the second defendant, which meeting held to be invalid by the competent Court, with utter disregard to the order of the Court the second defendant handed over all the records pertaining to AICF to the newly elected Secretary, P.K. Baskaran on 21.2.2005 which amounts to violative of the injunction order. 7.16 We are of the considered view that the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the first defendant is well founded in the light of the injunction order against the defendants 2 and 3. Moreover, the said parallel General BodyMeeting was held to be invalid. 7.16 We are of the considered view that the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the first defendant is well founded in the light of the injunction order against the defendants 2 and 3. Moreover, the said parallel General BodyMeeting was held to be invalid. Though the second defendant was well aware of the said contingency, he has not taken any steps to hand over the said documents to D.V. Sundar in spite of the reminders sent not only by the first defendant but also by the newly elected Secretary D.V. Sundar, So, we are constrained to hold that the act of the second defendant in handing over records of the AICF to Bhaskaran on 21.2.2005 under he guise of some decisions of the rival General Body Meeting, which is not valid, amounts to contumacious one. 8. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge both factually and on law and hence, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed and accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. No cost. 9. In view of the finding rendered in the Appeals, the I.As. deserves no merit and accordingly, they are closed. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos. 6136 and 6137 of 2006 are allowed and C.M.P.Nos. 2154 to 2156 of 2006 are closed. In view of our conclusion in para 7.16. Cont. petition No. 103 of 2006 is closed. 10. Before parting with the case, we are constrained to render the following findings also to give effect to : 1. The second defendant is directed to hand over the records of AICF forthwith to D.V. Sundar, the newly elected Secretary of AICF; 2. When the AICF was registered in the year 1958 under the Society Act at Chennai and there could be only one AICF in India to have communications with the FIDE, and some person unscrupulously registered AICF at Calicut in the year 1991 under the Society Act is not valid; 3. AICF registered at Chennai as per the Registration No. 125 of 1958 is valid as on date though the registration under Society Act was cancelled on 1.12.2005 due to some reason and the same was set aside as per the order of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 28; 4. Headquarters of AICF is at Chennai; 5. AICF registered at Chennai as per the Registration No. 125 of 1958 is valid as on date though the registration under Society Act was cancelled on 1.12.2005 due to some reason and the same was set aside as per the order of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 28; 4. Headquarters of AICF is at Chennai; 5. Thedefendants 2 and 3 are facing serous charges of misfeasance and malfeasance; 6. Siphoning AICF funds and enriching by themselves is their personal Act and so much so, they are injuncted from interfering with all the affairs of AICF. Any amount spent, out of AICF fund towards their litigation expenses, amount to illegal expenditure and they are bound to reimburse the same to AICF forthwith; and 7. The defendants 2 and 3 are directed to submit account for the withdrawal of AICF funds between 16.4.2005 to 5.5.2005, forthwith to AICF at Chennai.