Judgment : M. Venugopal, J. 1. Earlier, on 24.03.2014, this Court has passed the following order: "2.The election, scheduled to be held on 26.3.2014, shall go on, as per the schedule. However, the results of the election shall not be published, until further orders. Two of members of the Committee, namely, Ms.AL.Ganthimathi and Ms.Sundara Kanchani, nominated by this Court, by its order, dated 5.5.2011, made in O.S.A.Nos.115, 116, 124 and 139 of 2011, will oversee the election process, including the polling, which is scheduled to be held on 26.3.2014. After the polling is completed, the ballot boxes shall be sealed by the said committee members in the presence of the present office bearers of the Women Lawyers Association, the election officers appointed by the General Body of the Association and the contestants. Thereafter, the ballot boxes shall be handed over to the custody of the Registrar General of the High Court of Madras, by the two committee members, who had been assigned the duty of overseeing the election process. The Registrar General shall keep the ballot boxes in his custody, until further orders are passed by this Court. A report regarding the election process shall be filed before this Court, by the committee members, on or before 1.4.2014. " 2. Heard the respective Learned Counsels appearing for the concerned parties. 3. As per directions issued by this Court on 24.03.2014, the Committee Members had filed their Report, dated 01.04.2014, before this Court, among other things, stating that '.... Then the ballot boxes and the unpolled papers were brought to the chamber of the Registrar at about 7.00 p.m. and we handed over the boxes to the Registrar General and in the presence of us, and the four election officers and a few contestants the boxes were kept in the chambers opposite the chamber of the Registrar General in the High Court premises. Thereafter we left the premises only at 7.15 p.m. Accordingly the election process came to end. We hereby thank the Registrar General, The Registrar Admin Mrs.Ranjitha and the Police Officer Murali for being with us to complete the process.' 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that, in M.P.Nos.2 to 11 of 2011, in O.S.A.No.115 of 2011, this Court, on 19.08.2011, in paragraph Nos.6 and 7, had passed the following orders: "6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that, in M.P.Nos.2 to 11 of 2011, in O.S.A.No.115 of 2011, this Court, on 19.08.2011, in paragraph Nos.6 and 7, had passed the following orders: "6. While agreeing with the views taken by the learned single Judge, we have observed that learned Senior Counsel Mrs.Hema Sampath and the committee members to make suggestions for suitable amendment of the bye-laws. As per the above direction, the Committee headed by learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Hema Sampath comprising of the Committee members (i) Mrs.Sudha Ramalingam; (ii) Mrs. AL.Ganthimathi; (iii) Ms.P.T.Asha; (iv)Ms.Sundara Kanchani and (v)Ms. Mary Rose Poongothai shall make suggestions for suitable amendments of the bye-laws of Women Lawyers Association. For making such suggestions, the Committee shall look into bye-laws of the other Associations like MHAA, MBA and the Committee shall also solicit the views of the Senior Counsels and also the members of the Women Lawyers Association and make suggestion for suitable amendment. The Chairmen of the Committee shall file a report and the entire exercise shall be completed preferably within six weeks. 7. Insofar as, conduct of election and declaration of results, the concerned parties shall report before the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.243 of 2011. The suit C.S.No.243 of 2011 shall be kept pending until further orders. The voters list with signatures along with polled ballet papers and other relevant records shall be put in a cover and handed over to the Original Side of Madras High Court for being kept in safe custody in C.S.No.243 of 2011." 5. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks in aid of the Order of this Court, dated 28.02.2013, in O.S.A.Nos.115, 116, 124 & 139 of 2011, wherein this Court passed the following order: "Heard Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel, who has been nominated as Chairman of the Committee. Learned Senior Counsel has filed Draft Bye-law Amendments suggested by the Committee. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and the individual members of the Association, who have got any objection over the report, can file their views before the Chairman of the Committee/Committee on or before 20.03.2013. The Committee shall further examine the views/ objections raised by the parties or the members of the Association and finalise the amended bye laws. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and the individual members of the Association, who have got any objection over the report, can file their views before the Chairman of the Committee/Committee on or before 20.03.2013. The Committee shall further examine the views/ objections raised by the parties or the members of the Association and finalise the amended bye laws. The Women Lawyers Association shall publish in the notice board regarding the order passed by this Court." 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the order in O.S.A.Nos.115, 116, 124 & 139 of 2011, dated 25.09.2013, wherein in paragraph Nos.2, 5, 8 to 11, it is observed as under: "2. Ms.P.T.Asha, learned counsel, who is heading the Committee has submitted a report. In the said report, it is stated that the proposed amendment to the bye-laws were approved by the General Body in the meeting held on 12.09.2013 with certain modifications. The original bye-laws as well as the amended bye-laws have been filed along with the report filed by the learned counsel Ms.P.T.Asha. The report along with the bye-laws shall form part of the records. 5. It was stated that the General Body approved the proposed bye-laws with certain modifications. As per the resolution of the General Body of the Women Lawyers Association, the amended bye-laws came into force with effect from 12.09.2013. The election for the period 2013-2015 is already overdue and is to be held at the earliest. Ms.P.T.Asha, learned counsel, who is heading the Committee submitted that the election to be held for 2013-2015 has to be held only as per the amended bye-laws. Since the amended bye-laws came into force with effect from 12.09.2013, the election for the period 2013-2015 has to be necessarily held as per the amended bye-laws. 8. The above submission cannot be countenanced. The reason being when the amended bye-laws have come into force with effect from 12.09.2013, the election cannot be held as per the old bye-laws. There will be a lot of confusion with regard to other clauses in the amended bye-laws and which clause has to be given effect to. That apart, this Court has been monitoring the matter for the past three years. Only with a view to avoid any future litigation, the Committee had been constituted to propose amendment to the bye-laws. There will be a lot of confusion with regard to other clauses in the amended bye-laws and which clause has to be given effect to. That apart, this Court has been monitoring the matter for the past three years. Only with a view to avoid any future litigation, the Committee had been constituted to propose amendment to the bye-laws. Now that the proposed amendment to the bye-laws had also been approved by the General Body, the submission that the election to be held as per the old bye-laws cannot be countenanced. 9. As requested by Ms.P.T.Asha, learned counsel, who is heading the Committee, we are of the view that time to be granted to the Committee to identify the Resident members who are eligible to vote as per Clause 10 of the amended bye-laws. Matter shall be listed on 04.11.2013. 10. Ms.P.T.Asha, learned counsel, who is heading the Committee and also the Women Lawyers Association are directed to publish the gist of this order in the Notice Board. They shall also publish in the Notice Board the time at which the Committee will be sitting so as to enable the members to produce the necessary proof before the Committee for verifying the resident members of producing the proof of practice in the Corporation limits, as per Clause 10 of the amended bye-laws. 11. The Committee shall verify the residence proof or the proof regarding carrying on profession in the Corporation limits in respect of those members already identified. All the members already identified by the Committee are directed to be present in person before the Committee and show the details of residence or the proof of practice within the limits of Corporation of Chennai. In addition to publishing in the Notice Board, the Women Lawyers Association is directed to send individual communication to all those members already identified by the Committee to enable the members to appear before the Committee and produce the required details." and submits that the amendment to the bye-laws was approved by the General Body Meeting, held on 12.09.2013." 7. In addition to publishing in the Notice Board, the Women Lawyers Association is directed to send individual communication to all those members already identified by the Committee to enable the members to appear before the Committee and produce the required details." and submits that the amendment to the bye-laws was approved by the General Body Meeting, held on 12.09.2013." 7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously contends that the plea that the election should be conducted as per old Bye-laws was not countenanced, by means of an order passed by this Court dated 25.09.2013 in O.S.A.Nos.115, 116, 124 & 139 of 2011 and further, the Minutes of the General Body Meeting held on 27.02.2014 at 1.45 p.m. at W.L.A. Main Hall also refers to the unanimous decision that the elections should be conducted in terms of old Bye-laws only and the new Committee should bring in the amendments with certain modifications etc. 8. The prime submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that when this Court, by means of order, dated 25.09.2013 in O.S.A.Nos.115, 116, 124 & 139 of 2011, had clearly rejected the plea that election was to be held as per old bye-laws and when the Minutes of the General Body Meeting held on 27.02.20214 of the 1st Respondent Association refers to the conduct of elections in terms of old bye-laws only, then, this Court's order dated 25.09.2013 stood violated and in this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on the decision in State of M.P. and another V. Suresh Narayan Vijayvargiya and others, 2014 (2) Supreme 1 at special page 6, wherein, in paragraph 13, it is, inter alia, observed as follows: "13. ... Even otherwise, once there is an order in force binding on the parties, they cannot violate or ignore that order, taking shelter under a statutory provision and if any modification of the orders is warranted, parties should have approached this Court and sought for clarification or modification of those orders." 9. ... Even otherwise, once there is an order in force binding on the parties, they cannot violate or ignore that order, taking shelter under a statutory provision and if any modification of the orders is warranted, parties should have approached this Court and sought for clarification or modification of those orders." 9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant cites the decision of this Court, in Mr.R.Karuppan V. P.K.Rajagopal, Secretary, The Advocates' Association, High Court Buildings, Chennai and 4 others, 2001 (3) CTC 486 wherein, it is, observed and held that 'The Association registered under Societies' Act are governed by Act, Rules and Bye-laws and the jurisdiction of Civil Court are not excluded by any provisions either under Societies' Registration Act or Rules or Bye-laws and the Civil Court can interfere with holding of elections in appropriate cases'. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sudha V. President, Advocates Association, Chennai and others, (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 114, at page 117, wherein, it is observed that 'It is necessary to amend the bye-laws of the Association because it is the duty of the associations to ensure that there is no unprofessional and/or unbecoming conduct by the advocates at the time of election of the office bearers of the association. In every society or association some code of conduct has to be laid down as to in which manner the voting should be done and who would be competent to vote.' 11. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, dated 05.09.2012, in W.A.No.2088 of 2011, reported in K.Gnanaprakasam V. Food Corporation of India (South Zone) Employees Co-op. Society Limited and others, (2013) 2 M.L.J. 159 [one of us, M.V. J. was a party] wherein, it is observed and held that 'On perusing the materials available on record, it was seen that though Petitioner had initiated steps to conduct election during his tenure, as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act, by initiating judicial proceedings by way of filing suit and grant of interim injunction. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45(6) of the Act, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was appointed as Returning Officer to conduct elections'. 12. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45(6) of the Act, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was appointed as Returning Officer to conduct elections'. 12. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant places strong reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Supreme Court Bar Association and others V. B.D.Kaushik, (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 774 at special page 775, wherein it is held that 'Supreme Court Bar Association exists for promoting interest of Supreme Court and not of advocates not regularly practising in Supreme Court and further that the basic principle underlying amendment is that advocates not practising regularly in Supreme Court cannot be permitted to take over affairs of Supreme Court Bar Association'. 13. The core submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is that if this Court allows the election process and order for counting process and publication of results etc., then, the earlier orders of this Court passed on various dates, beginning from 05.05.2011 till 04.11.2013, in O.S.A.Nos.115, 116, 124 & 139 of 2011, would get diluted. 14. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent that one S.Thamizharasi, G.V.Shoba and the Appellant/ Plaintiff took part in the Executive Committee Meeting held on 05.02.2014 at 3.00 p.m. and further, in the Minutes of the General Body Meeting of the 1st Respondent Association held on 27.02.2014 at 1.45 p.m. in W.L.A. in Serial No.6, it was unanimously resolved to conduct the election as per old bye-laws only and further, it was decided that as soon as the new office bearers were elected in the forthcoming Election, the new Executive Committee will place it in the G.B. the Amended Bye-laws which was placed before G.B. on 12.09.2013 etc. 15. 15. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submits that, as per Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, an amendment of the memorandum or the bye-laws is to be registered with the Registrar of Societies and only when the Registrar registers an amendment of the said memorandum or the bye-laws, he shall issue to the registered society a copy of the amendment certified by him, which shall be conclusive evidence to the effect that the amendment was duly registered in terms of the ingredients of Section 12(4) of the Act, 1975 and in the instant case, the Registrar of Societies had not approved the Minutes of the General Body Meeting held on 27.02.2014. 16. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent brings it to the notice of this Court that since the 1st Respondent Association had not filed Annual Returns for the earlier periods, the non filing of the Annual Returns of the 1st Respondent Association was not condoned by the Registrar of the Societies, since as per Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the power of the Registrar to condone delay is limited in certain cases only prescribed thereunder and if the period of delay exceeds the period prescribed under the Act, then, it is only for the Government to condone the delay in filing of the Annual Return by the 1st Respondent Association to the Registrar of Societies. 17. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent by referring to the paragraph No.5 of the Order in O.S.A.Nos.115, 116, 124 & 139 of 2011 wherein it is specifically mentioned that 'As per the resolution of the General Body of the Women Lawyers Association, the amended bye-laws came into force with effect from 12.09.2013' and contends that since the Minutes of the General Body dated 27.02.2014 was not approved by the Registrar of Societies, the Resolution had not come into force as on date. 18. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent cites the decision in The Music Academy, Rep. By its Executive Trustee, Chennai V. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and 2 others, 2005-4-L.W.-67, at special page 76, wherein in paragraph No.25, it is observed as follows: "25. One main dispute is relating to validity of the election held in June 2001. 18. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent cites the decision in The Music Academy, Rep. By its Executive Trustee, Chennai V. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and 2 others, 2005-4-L.W.-67, at special page 76, wherein in paragraph No.25, it is observed as follows: "25. One main dispute is relating to validity of the election held in June 2001. It has been submitted by Mr.T.R.Mani, Mr.K.Chandu and Mr.T.V.Ramanujam that such election was held on the basis of bye-laws purportedly amended in 1989 by depriving the members of their right of contesting the election on the pretext that such members have not completed 3 years of membership. As per Section 12(3) of the State Act, until the amendment of the bye-laws is registered by the Registrar, such bye-laws would not be effective. Moreover, no bye-laws would be effective if such bye-laws are against the provisions contained in the Act. In above view of the matter, the provisions contained in the bye-laws of 1989 to the effect that in order to contest, a person should have been a member for 3 years was ineffective inasmuch as such bye-laws had not been registered at the time when the election was held in June 2001." 19. By means of reply, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Supreme Court Bar Association and others V. B.D.Kaushik, (2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases 774 at special page 798, wherein, in paragraph No.66, it was observed as follows: "66. Informing the Court the learned counsel mentioned that historically with the advocates regularly practising in the Supreme Court being inducted as members of SCBA, the facilities made available by this Court to the members were sufficient for their use, but certain unhealthy practices and vices started creeping into the system of elections to the various posts/offices of SCBA by reason of the fact that the office of the President of SCBA carried a vast prestige and status, not merely among lawyers but also among governments and the political class." 20. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Division Bench of this Court, while passing the orders on 25.09.2013, never spoke about the new amended bye-laws and reiterated that the Division Bench order of this Court could not be defied. 21. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Division Bench of this Court, while passing the orders on 25.09.2013, never spoke about the new amended bye-laws and reiterated that the Division Bench order of this Court could not be defied. 21. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to Paragraph No.6 of the order of this Court dated 19.08.2013 in O.S.A.Nos.115, 116, 124 & 139 of 2011 wherein a direction was given that list of eligible voters -1792+17+1 was to be published in the Notice Board on 21.08.2013 and that the list of members so published shall be final and no further representations shall be entertained etc. Also, it was ordered that in the General Body Meeting to be convened on 12.09.2013, the General Body shall consider the amendments to the bye-laws as suggested and also fix the election schedule. 22. At the outset, it is to be pointed out that the Appellant/ Plaintiff has filed the Civil Suit No.243 of 2011 against the 1st Respondent Association and others seeking the following reliefs: "a) For a declaration that the Annual General Meeting held on 28.02.2011 notifying the election to be held, to elect the office bearers of 1st defendant Association/Society for the period 2011-2013 as invalid, being in contravention of the bye-laws of the 1st defendant society, b) Consequently to grant an order of injunction restraining the defendants 1, 12 and 13 from conducting the Election for the 1st defendant Association pursuant to the Annual General Meeting held on 28.02.2011 for the period 20112013 to be held on 20.04.2011, c) Consequently to grant an order of injunction restraining the defendant 2 to 11 from functioning and discharging their duties and powers as the office Bearers of the 1st Defendant Association. d) To frame a scheme, regarding scrutiny of new members who not completed 3 years of membership in Women Lawyers Association and non resident members." As on date, the said suit is pending on the file of this Court. 23. d) To frame a scheme, regarding scrutiny of new members who not completed 3 years of membership in Women Lawyers Association and non resident members." As on date, the said suit is pending on the file of this Court. 23. On behalf of the 1st Respondent, it is brought to the notice of this Court that before the Registrar of Societies, an Application was filed in writing in regard to the condonation of delay relating to non filing of Annual Return(s) for a default period/periods and upto a certain period viz., three years under the Act, 1975, the Registrar of Societies is empowered to condone the delay and beyond that period it is upto the Government to condone the delay. Even for performing these acts, the 1st Respondent Association requires persons to deal with the same and in view of the fact that the election to the 1st Respondent Association was held on 26.03.2014 and when the Committee Members had submitted the Report dated 01.04.2014 [in terms of the directions issued by this Court on 24.03.2014], then counting of votes and declaration of results only remain and there can be no impediment for this Court to pass appropriate orders in this behalf. 24. It cannot be gainsaid that the ingredients of Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, are mandatory one and not mere directory in character as per decision, Ram Charan Agarwala and others V. Shridhar Misra and others, AIR 1962 Allahabad 610. 25. It is to be noted that ordinarily, the acts of management are within the powers of society itself, any dispute between individual members of the society and those responsible for its management in a given case ought to be decided by the machinery provided by the Rules. Further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in I.Nelson and another V. Kallayam Pastorate and others, (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 624, at special page 625, it is, inter alia, laid down that 'A society need not necessarily be held to have become defunct only because certain statutory provisions have not been complied with by it'. 26. Further, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in I.Nelson and another V. Kallayam Pastorate and others, (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 624, at special page 625, it is, inter alia, laid down that 'A society need not necessarily be held to have become defunct only because certain statutory provisions have not been complied with by it'. 26. It is to be significantly pointed out by this Court that the copy of the special resolution referred to in Section 27, in terms of Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978, shall be filed with the Registrar within three months from the date of passing of such resolution. As a matter of fact, the employment of the words 'not exceeding' in Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, indicates that the Registrar had no power to condone the delay beyond six months in filing resolution, as per decision Jagmohan Dalmiya V. The Board of Control for Cricket in India and others, AIR 2008 Cal 227 . 27. In fact, Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 refers to 'Accounts to be written up promptly'. Indeed, the accounts, returns and registers of the Society specified under Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 shall be verified by a Member of the Committee and in each such account, return and register, the following declaration shall be endorsed by such members in token of such verification viz., "I declare that the particulars furnished above are true and correct on the best of my knowledge and belief". Also, Rule 22 speaks of 'Time for filing of documents specified in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 16. Further, Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 speaks of 'Notice of annual general meeting to members'. 28. Also, Rule 22 speaks of 'Time for filing of documents specified in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 16. Further, Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 speaks of 'Notice of annual general meeting to members'. 28. In view of the fact that the Election to the 1st Respondent Association had taken place, pursuant to the orders of this Court, dated 24.03.2014 and this Court, taking note of the fact that the Members of the Committee had submitted their Report, dated 01.04.2014, before this Court in terms of the directions issued and also keeping in mind another very important fact that the 1st Respondent Association is to function for carrying out its routine and regular day-to-day affairs/ activities, this Court, in the interest of Fair Play, Equity, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, without delving deep into the merits of the matter and the rights of the parties in detail, in the pending O.S.A., directs the Registrar General of this Court to hand over the custody of the Ballot Boxes to the Committee Members, in the presence of the present Office bearers of the 1st Respondent Association, the Election Officers appointed by the General Body of the Association, the Contestants and the Observer viz., Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate appointed by this Court, today itself, at the Women Lawyers Association, with sufficient Police Protection. Thereupon, the Committee Members viz., (i)M/s.AL.Ganthimathi; and (ii)Ms.Sundara Kanchani, with the assistance of Election Officers appointed by the General Body of the Association, the Contestants and the Observer viz., Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate appointed by this Court, are to count the votes and to declare the results on the same day itself. To ensure orderly smooth and peaceful counting of votes and the declaration of the results, the Registrar General is directed to provide adequate Police Security outside the premises where the votes would be counted and the election results would be declared. A complete and comprehensive Common Report, regarding the completion process of the Election shall be filed before this Court, by the Committee Members, within a period of one week, after the process is completed, as directed above. Further, it is made clear that the election of the office bearers of the 1st Respondent Association would be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court in the Original Side Appeal, in O.S.A.No.77 of 2014. Further, it is made clear that the election of the office bearers of the 1st Respondent Association would be subject to further orders to be passed by this Court in the Original Side Appeal, in O.S.A.No.77 of 2014. List the O.S.A.No.77 of 2014, along with M.P.No.1 of 2014 and M.P.No.2 of 2014, after four weeks.