Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 251 (JK)

Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. Y. V. Sharma

2020-06-19

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2020
JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") whereby the application for grant of interim relief filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in a suit titled "Y.V. Sharma and another Vs. The Chamber of Commerce & Industry & Ors." has been allowed and the operation of the decisions/resolution of the impugned Special General Meeting dated 19.12.2018 of the appellant No. 1 organized at Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu and published in newspaper dated 13.03.2019, whereby the term of appellant Nos. 2&3 as well as respondent Nos. 3 to 6 was extended along with various amendments made in the constitution have been kept in abeyance and further the appellant Nos. 2&3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have been restrained to use any financial power to deal with the accounts of appellant No. 1 and also restrained from operating of bank accounts of appellant No. 1 with the different banks till the disposal of the suit. However, the Respondent no: 5 has been permitted to operate one bank account for the purpose of payment of Salary of Staff/Employees, payment of Telephone Bills/Electricity Bills and rental charges to be paid by the Appellant no.: 1, with further direction to him to keep the proper record of withdrawals so made and furnish monthly record before the Trial Court till further orders. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that a suit for declaration to the effect that a Special General Meeting of the Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Registered) Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "CCI") dated 19.12.2018 held at Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu where by the tenure of the officer bearers of CCI Jammu was extended up to first week of March, 2021 and its other decisions including the so called amendment of the constitution of CCI Jammu are illegal and void-ab initio being against the provisions of the constitution, thus be declared as non-est in the eyes of law with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellant Nos. 2 & 3 and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 from claiming, projecting, acting, working, further continuing and holding of the office of CCI Jammu as its office bearers and further restraining them from dealing in any manner whatsoever with the moveable and immoveable properties of CCI Jammu including cash, bank account(s), deposits, membership fees, subscription fees of CCI Jammu and a further relief of mandatory injunction for appointment of election committee for conducting the fresh elections of office bearers of CCI Jammu was also sought. The said suit was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the Appellant No. 1 is a Society duly registered with the Registrar of Societies and having its own constitution under which the CCI Jammu works and functions. The said constitution provides for the functioning, management, membership, election, tenure of office bearers of CCI. Both the respondents claimed themselves to be the principal members of CCI. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 further pleaded that the last election of CCI Jammu was held on 05.03.2017 for a period of two years as per the constitution of CCI and in the said election there were as many as 2361 members, who were enrolled as eligible voters entitled to cast their vote. In the said election, appellant Nos. 2 &3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were elected as office bearers for the CCI Jammu for a period of two years only, as per the mandate of Section 16 of constitution of CCI. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 further stated that after the tenure of the office bearers expired in March, 2019, they were under constitutional obligation to announce and conduct the election of appellant No. 1 by April, 2019. However, the appellant No. 2&3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are illegally holding the office of appellant No. 1. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 further pleaded that before the expiry of their tenure, the appellant Nos. 2&3 and respondent Nos. However, the appellant No. 2&3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are illegally holding the office of appellant No. 1. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 further pleaded that before the expiry of their tenure, the appellant Nos. 2&3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 hatched a conspiracy to illegally continue as office bearers of appellant No. 1 beyond the prescribed period of two years and in pursuance to the said conspiracy, they organized a Special General Meeting dated 19.12.2018 at Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu illegally without adhering the provisions of the constitution provided for holding such type of meeting, as no notice for convening the special general meeting was ever got published in any of the leading daily newspaper of the then State and this meeting was organized without circulating any agenda to be discussed in the said meeting. As per Section 10 of the constitution, the Special General Meeting has to be conducted once a year and that can be conducted at the instance of Executive Committee. The said Special General Meeting can also be conducted any time on the written request of 10 percent of the members of the total membership. It was submitted that for conducting a Special General Meeting on 19.12.2018 at Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu, neither any written request was made for convening the meeting by 10 per cent of the members of the total membership nor it was summoned by the Executive Committee. It was further stated that the appellant No. 2 after having been elected as President had not even constituted the Executive Committee within one month of his election and also the same was never notified to the members of the appellant No. 1. It was also pleaded that appellant No. 2 after election never nominated a presidium as per the mandate of Section 17 of constitution of CCI Jammu and it was done deliberately by the appellant No. 2, so as to avoid supervision of the functioning of the office bearers by the Presidium, as the Presidium was/is meant to ensure the strict compliance of the provisions of the constitution of CCI. It was mandatory for any member who had any grievance regarding the violation of the constitution by the office bearers to first of all bring the same to the notice of presidium and without approaching the presidium, the said aggrieved member had no right to approach the Court directly. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 further stated that as per Section 10 of the CCI, notice for Special General Meeting was required to be published in two daily leading newspapers of the State at least seven days before the day fixed for such meeting and if possible, the members could be intimated individually also. In the instant case, no such publication was made by the appellant No. 2&3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 before convening the said meeting on 19.12.2018. Thus, the said meeting was illegal and the decisions of any such illegal meeting are not binding upon the appellant No. 1 and its registered members including the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the same was only managed show with a malafide intention to get the extension of the term of office bearers of appellant No. 1. The total members of the CCI were 2361 and there ought to have been 787 eligible members in the said Special General Meeting to form the quorum of the meeting. It was also stated that there were hardly about 400 members present in the meeting and those included 209 new members who were yet to be confirmed as eligible members of appellant No. 1. It was further pleaded that there was no agenda of the meeting for extension of tenure of appellant Nos. 2&3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in any manner. Also, neither any proposal for extension of office bearers i.e. appellant Nos. 2&3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 including various amendments in the constitution were ever put forth by the appellant No. 2 nor discussed and further no decision was taken in this regard. The decision of extension of tenure of the office bearers claimed to have been taken in the Special General Meeting is in grave violations of the provisions of the constitution because the same is not provided in it. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 further submitted that appellant Nos. 2&3 and respondent Nos. The decision of extension of tenure of the office bearers claimed to have been taken in the Special General Meeting is in grave violations of the provisions of the constitution because the same is not provided in it. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 further submitted that appellant Nos. 2&3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 played a mischief and got published the alleged decisions and resolutions of the aforesaid Special General Meeting dated 19.12.2018 in Newspaper "Dainik Jagaran", Jammu on 13.03.2019 i.e. 84 days after the holding of the said meeting. It was further stated that mandate of Section 21 was not followed, as such, the amendments are contrary to the provisions of the constitution of CCI. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 lastly sated that the appellant Nos. 2&3 and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have no right to continue as office bearers and cause the financial loss to the CCI, as they are acting not in furtherance of aims and objections of CCI but they are acting in tandem for their personal benefits in the society as well as in the political circle. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also filed an application for grant of interim relief and sought various interim reliefs pending the trial of the suit. The details of the decisions/Resolution of the Special General Meeting dated 19.12.2018 have not been reproduced here for the sake of brevity. 3. The appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed their written statement and raised numerous preliminary objections disputing the maintainability of the suit on the grounds that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not approached the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from the Court, as not only the Executive Committee was duly constituted as per the constitution of CCI, Jammu but the presidium has also been in place as per Section 17 of constitution of CCI. The Working Committee was duly constituted by the appellant No. 2 within the one month of his election which included all the living/past presidents/past Secretary Generals on 2-4-2017 and even the Working Committee was constituted on 01.04.2019. The Presidium was constituted on 02.04.2017 and also on 01.04.2019 in terms of Section. It was further stated that by pleading wrong facts before the Court regarding the non-constitution of presidium, the respondent Nos. The Presidium was constituted on 02.04.2017 and also on 01.04.2019 in terms of Section. It was further stated that by pleading wrong facts before the Court regarding the non-constitution of presidium, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed the suit, which is contrary to the mandate of Section 17. The appellants have placed on record the communication addressed to appellant No 2 by all the nine members of the presidium certifying that none of the ex-office bearers or any member of CCI Jammu including the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 approached them either verbally or in writing with regard to any violation of the constitution of CCI, Jammu. It was further stated that by placing wrong facts before the Court, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have obtained ex parte ad interim order, that has resulted into the stalling of functioning of the CCI, Jammu. The appellants and the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 further pleaded in their written statement that important provisions were incorporated in the constitution of CCI, Jammu in its Special General Meeting on 19.12.2018 at Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu and the said amendments were carried out on the persistent demands of the members of CCI Jammu who were pressing hard for introduction of the educated/talented lot to represent the prestigious organization of Jammu province and further motive was to bring transparency and fairness in the election process and to rule out excess spending and unfair practices in the holding of CCI elections. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the respondent No. 1 and appellant No. 2 attended a meeting of J&K Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JKJCCI), a consortium of Regional Chambers of Srinagar, Jammu (J&K), Mirpur and Muzaffarabad (PoK) from June 23, 2019 to June 25, 2019 wherein the appellant No. 2 took over as the President of JKJCCI in Tashkent. On one hand, the respondent No. 1 has leveled serious allegations against the continuation of appellant No. 2 as president of appellant No. 1 and on the other hand he accompanied the respondent No. 2 for a prestigious meeting of Joint Chambers and facilitated his election as President. The double standards of the respondent No. 1 are, as such, visible. On one hand, the respondent No. 1 has leveled serious allegations against the continuation of appellant No. 2 as president of appellant No. 1 and on the other hand he accompanied the respondent No. 2 for a prestigious meeting of Joint Chambers and facilitated his election as President. The double standards of the respondent No. 1 are, as such, visible. Another objection was raised that the decision impugned sought to be declared as null and void was passed on 19.12.2018 and thereafter the activities of CCI Jammu were being carried for the betterment of its members. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had allowed the working of CCI Jammu without a murmur and after one year and two months, they have got up after deep slumber to file the suit. The discretionary relief of injunction cannot be given to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as they are party to the decision by not only their conduct but also the respondent No. 2 was party to the said decision as he was personally present in the said meeting. The suit is also stated to be time barred and it is also stated that suit has been filed by only two persons in their individual capacity, whereas CCI Jammu comprises of more than 2800 members and the respondent Nos. 1&2 have filed the suit in representative capacity without permission of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and sought the dismissal of the suit on this ground as well. The appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 admitted the status of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as principal members and reiterated that in order to make organization more effective and bring transparency the Special General Meeting was held on 19.12.2018 at Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu and the amendments were subsequently published in leading dailies of the State i.e., Daily Excelsior and Dainik Jagaran in their issues dated 13.03.2019. It was also stated that there is no prohibition in the constitution for extension of tenure and same was approved much before the expiry of the term by the jam-packed house on 19.12.2018. The appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 admitted that their term was to complete in March, 2019 in terms of Section 16 of the constitution but before the expiry of the term of the appellants and respondent Nos. The appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 admitted that their term was to complete in March, 2019 in terms of Section 16 of the constitution but before the expiry of the term of the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6, more than 10 percent of the members of the appellant No. 1 made a representation to the appellant No. 2 to convene a Special General Meeting for discussing various issues confronting CCI Jammu with special reference to unfinished task of construction of Business Club and also to consider the continuation of appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as office bearers till the completion of project and besides the members also requested for certain amendments in the constitution and pursuant to that, Special General Meeting was convened on 19.12.2018 at Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu, where more than 800 members were present. It was during historic/jam-packed session of the Special General Meeting held on 19.12.2018, the members of CCI, Jammu in one voice except two dissenting views expressed by Shri Arun Gupta, Ex-General Secretary, CCI, Jammu and Shri Ramesh Gupta, Ex-President, CCI Jammu, rest all the members while approving the agenda of the meeting in one voice by raising their hands demanded and approved the continuation of the tenure of the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 up to March, 2021 solely for the reason to authorize the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to complete the process of construction of proposed modern Club for the members of CCI, Jammu. The respondent No. 2 was personally present in the said meeting and did not raise any objections to the agenda/items approved. The respondent No. 1 though invited personally by the appellant No. 2 did not attend the meeting for the reasons best known to him. It was further stated that the agenda of the meeting was issued on 11.12.2018 and duly circulated amongst the members individually. The agenda item from 1 to 9 clearly exhibit the business to be discussed and approved. It is vehemently denied that Special General Meeting was held illegally without adhering to the provisions of the constitution and there was no requirement of getting the notice published in the newspaper. The meeting was not conducted in violation of section 10 of the constitution of CCI as the requirement of publication in two dailies of the State was with regard to the adjourned meeting. The meeting was not conducted in violation of section 10 of the constitution of CCI as the requirement of publication in two dailies of the State was with regard to the adjourned meeting. It was further pleaded that the entire minutes/proceedings of the historic general meeting had been video graphed/photographed and there were more than 800 members present in the jam-packed hall of Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu and the quorum of the meeting was complete when all the decisions were put to the house and approved but on 19th December, 2018, it was Ekadishi (Hindu holy day) and few members after the approval of the items left the hall, as they had to observe certain rituals and at the end there were around 751 members. The presence of 209 new members, who were yet to be confirmed, was denied by the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 also pleaded that all the members of the Executive Committee were invited to participate in the said meeting and thus there has been no violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 21 of the constitution of CCI. The allegations of organizing unwanted functions/events are baseless so as to carve out a ground for stopping the banking operations of appellant No. 1. The appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 also filed the objections to the application for grant of interim relief on similar lines, as those in written statement and prayed for dismissal of the application for grant of interim relief. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also filed replica to the written statement and stated that the false facts have been pleaded by the appellants and respondent Nos. 3 to 6. In short, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 pleaded that the story of constituting Executive Committee and presidium is false one. 5. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments, allowed the application for grant of interim relief filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and passed the order dated 16.03.2020 (hereinafter referred to as order impugned). 6. Aggrieved of the order impugned, only the appellants/defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 7 preferred an appeal against the order impugned where as the other defendants i.e. 3 to 6 did not choose to prefer an appeal and have been arrayed as proforma respondents. 1 & 2 and passed the order dated 16.03.2020 (hereinafter referred to as order impugned). 6. Aggrieved of the order impugned, only the appellants/defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 7 preferred an appeal against the order impugned where as the other defendants i.e. 3 to 6 did not choose to prefer an appeal and have been arrayed as proforma respondents. The proforma respondents 4-6 after causing their appearance through Counsel, filed affidavits and categorically stated that they have no grievance against the order impugned passed by the Trial Court. The proforma respondent no.: 3 has also toed the line of other proforma respondents, while filing objections to the application for grant of interim relief. 7. The appellants have filed an appeal against the order impugned primarily on the following grounds:- a. That despite absence of all the three necessary ingredients necessary for grant of interim relief i.e. Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss, the Trial Court has passed the order impugned. b. That the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had no locus standi to file the suit and without following the mandate of Societies Registration Act, the suit was incompetent and as such no interim injunction could have been granted. c. That suit was also not maintainable in view of the Section-17 of the constitution, that makes it obligatory for the members to raise their grievance, if any, regarding the violation of the constitution, with the Presidium instead of approaching the Courts directly. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 having not availed the said remedy, could not have filed the suit. d. That the injunction has been granted in violation of Section-41(g) and 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act. The appellants have stated that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 did not chose to challenge the proceedings of the meeting for more than a year and also the respondent No. 1 had gone to Tashkent, Uzbekistan along with appellant No. 2 for participation in the meeting of JKJCCI held there, where the appellant No. 2 was elected as President of JKJCCI. e. That the provisions of the constitution have been substantially complied by the appellants, as such there was no violation of the constitution of the CCI and the failure on the part of learned Trial Court to appreciate this aspect of the matter renders the judgment unsustainable. e. That the provisions of the constitution have been substantially complied by the appellants, as such there was no violation of the constitution of the CCI and the failure on the part of learned Trial Court to appreciate this aspect of the matter renders the judgment unsustainable. f. That by passing the order impugned in the application for grant of interim relief, the final decree has been passed by the learned Trial Court, that is not permissible as per the law laid down by the Apex Court. g. That the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had not approached the Court with clean hands, as they had suppressed the factum of constitution of the Executive Committee as well as the Presidium by the Appellant no.: 2 after his election, from the Trial Court. 8. I have heard the Learned Counsels for the respective parties in extenso as they consented for the final disposal of appeal and have also perused the order impugned as well as the pleadings and the documents relied upon by the parties. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.: 3 to 6 has supported the order impugned. 9. The order of interim injunction passed during the pendency of the suit is discretionary order but the discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily by the Court of first instance and rather the same is dependent upon the proper appreciation of the facts and issues of law involved. The interim injunction pending trial of the suit is to be granted only if the plaintiff qualifies the triple test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The purpose of injunction is to maintain the status quo pending the determination of conflicting claims of the parties during the trial of the suit. 10. Before appreciating the contentions of the appellants raised in the present appeal, it would be appropriate to take note of the scope of Appeal against discretionary orders. The Apex Court in case titled "Wander Ltd. versus Antox India Pvt. Ltd" reported in 1990 (Supp1) SCC 727 has held as under:- "The appeals before the division bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. The Apex Court in case titled "Wander Ltd. versus Antox India Pvt. Ltd" reported in 1990 (Supp1) SCC 727 has held as under:- "The appeals before the division bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial courts exercise of discretion". 11. The ratio of the above noted judgment is that once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter, it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Thus this Court without transgressing the frontiers mentioned above would examine the contentions raised by the appellants. 12. The grounds a), e) and g) mentioned above are related to each other in one way or the other and as such the same are being considered together. Thus this Court without transgressing the frontiers mentioned above would examine the contentions raised by the appellants. 12. The grounds a), e) and g) mentioned above are related to each other in one way or the other and as such the same are being considered together. i. The appellants have raised a plea that the Respondent nos.: 1 & 2 had no prima facie case as appellants had substantially complied the mandate of the constitution in convening the Special General Meeting and also the decisions/resolution of the impugned Special General Meeting dated 19.12.2018 were passed as per the mandate of the constitution of CCI. It is required to be noted that the Trial Court has specifically returned a finding that there has been a violation of the constitution of CCI both in convening of the impugned Special General Meeting as well as taking the decisions thereof in the said meeting. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 owes its existence to the constitution that was framed way back in the year 1960 and amended from time to time. Further, there is no conflict between the parties that the General Council comprises of all the members of the CCI and the Executive Committee is a smaller body of the General Council to be constituted by the President within the one month of his election as President and also that the term of Office bearers under old constitution is 2 years extendable for a further term of 6 months in the event of contingencies as provided in the Constitution. The parties are unanimous with regard to the total membership of the CCI Jammu that stood at 2361 at the time of alleged meeting. Now it is to be seen as to whether the said finding by the Trial Court has any basis in the constitution of CCI or not. It would be profitable to reproduce Section-10, Section-11, Section-13(i), Section-16, Section-17, relevant portion of Section-19 and Section 21 of the constitution of the CCI. "Section -10 General Council: The Supreme authority shall be vested in the General Council. Special General Meeting Any meeting of the General Council other than for the purpose of election shall be termed as Special General Meeting of the house. Special General Meeting can also be called at the written request of ten percent of the members of the total membership. Special General Meeting Any meeting of the General Council other than for the purpose of election shall be termed as Special General Meeting of the house. Special General Meeting can also be called at the written request of ten percent of the members of the total membership. Special General meeting shall be called at least once a year and at such times as summoned by the Executive Committee. The Special General Meeting of the General Council shall be called at seven day's notice to the members and the Special General meeting shall have the powers to transact the following business: Amendment of the Constitution. Expulsion of the membership. Matter which may be referred to it by the Executive Committee. To transact any other important matter with the consent of the President. Quorum for the Special General Meeting shall be 1/3rd of the membership on the register. In case there is no quorum within half an hour, the meeting shall be adjourned. Every such adjourned meeting shall be summoned within one month from the date of adjournment but not earlier than seven days. The notice for Special General Meetings shall be published in minimum two leading dailies of the State at least seven days before the day fixed for such meetings and if possible members may be intimated individually also. (B) Bi-ennial General Council Meeting (Election Meeting): The Bi-ennial General Council Meeting (Election Meeting) shall be held in the month of April only after every two years except in case of Natural/National Calamity/Wars to be justified in the meeting of the Executive Committee. But in no case such election meeting shall be postponed for more than 6 months. In such meetings the following business shall be transacted. Consideration of accounts. Election of the officer Bearers. Quorum for the bi-ennial General Council Meeting (Election Meeting) shall be 1/10th of the members on the register but not less than 100 members. In case there is no quorum in the Election Meeting within half an hour of the time fixed the meeting shall be adjourned. In case there is no quorum in the adjourned meeting, the meeting shall be adjourned till further notice. In the subsequent meeting irrespective of the quorum the business on the Agenda shall be transacted and shall be carried through by majority vote. In case there is no quorum in the adjourned meeting, the meeting shall be adjourned till further notice. In the subsequent meeting irrespective of the quorum the business on the Agenda shall be transacted and shall be carried through by majority vote. Section-11 AGENDA The Agenda proposed for the General meeting shall be dispatched to all the members at least 7 days before the day fixed for the meeting. No matter shall be discussed in the General meeting which has not been included in the Agenda of the meeting, provided that the President may in the case of urgency permit the discussion of such matter as are not included in the Agenda. Section-13 Power and duties of the Executive Committee (a) ........ (b) .......... (c) .......... (d) ......... (e) .......... (f) ........... (g) ........... (h) ........... (i) To summon General Council Meeting as required by the constitution and see that its resolutions are carried out. (j) ......... (k) ......... Section-16 Term of Office Bearers: The term of office Bearers shall be two years. Section-17 President The president shall be elected by the General Council. He will hold the office as long as he enjoys the confidence of the General Council. A vote of no confidence can be moved against him in the General Council Meeting and will be considered carried, if two third members of the total membership of the Chamber vote against him. The meeting of the Chamber can be called for this purpose if 20% of the members demand it in writing. The President will be the spokesman of the Chamber. He shall preside and control the business of all the meetings of the Chamber. In the event of his absence the Senior Vice President and in case of later's absence, the Junior Vice President shall preside and in the event of absence of the both, the Executive Committee shall nominate a Chairman from amongst its members. The President shall nominate the members of the Executive Committee within one month of the election and the names of the nominated members shall be notified to the members of the Chamber. All past Presidents and Past Secretary Generals presently members on the register of Chamber of Commerce and Industry shall be the members of every Executive Committee. The President shall nominate the members of the Executive Committee within one month of the election and the names of the nominated members shall be notified to the members of the Chamber. All past Presidents and Past Secretary Generals presently members on the register of Chamber of Commerce and Industry shall be the members of every Executive Committee. The President shall also constitute the required expert committees and may co-opt some members in the Executive Committee for the benefit of the better working of Chamber. The President shall also constitute a Presidium comprising of two past Presidents, two past Secretary Generals and 3 members of eminence. The duties of the Presidium shall be to be to ensure strict adherence and compliance of the Constitution of Chamber of Commerce & Industry by the office bearers and all the members of Chamber of Commerce & Industry. It will be mandatory for the members having any grievance regarding the violation of the constitution by the office bearers to report such matters to the Presidium instead of approaching the Courts of law directly. The ruling by the Presidium shall be binding on all the members and office bearers of Chamber. The President shall have the powers to nominate five persons of eminence as his honorary advisors who shall not have the right to vote and their term will expire with the term of nominating President. However, the President shall have the right to withdraw any of the nomination or change with some other person. In case of the resignation of President or prolonged absence for more than six months during his term, the Senior Vice President shall perform the duties of the President till the end of his term. No new elections shall be held for the same. Section-19 Secretary General The duties of the Secretary General shall be: (a) ..... (b) ....... (c) ........... (d) ........... (e) To issue notice of the General Council Meetings and meetings of the Executive Committee. No new elections shall be held for the same. Section-19 Secretary General The duties of the Secretary General shall be: (a) ..... (b) ....... (c) ........... (d) ........... (e) To issue notice of the General Council Meetings and meetings of the Executive Committee. Section-21 Constitution Amendment: No alteration or addition to the Constitution shall be made unless notice of the same has been given first to the Executive Committee which shall place the proposed amendments before the General Council for final decision unless a majority of the Executive Committee present have voted against it." (ii) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has argued that the agenda dated 11.12.2018 of the Special General Meeting that was to be held on 19.12.2018 was circulated to all the members of the CCI Jammu and in the said meeting more than 800 members participated. It was further argued that as per the mandate of Section-10, it was not mandatory to publish the notice for convening Special General Meetings in two leading dailies of the State, as that obligation was only with regard to the adjourned Special General Meeting. It was vehemently argued that the Special General Meeting was convened at the written request of more than 10 percent of the total members. Learned Senior Counsel further laid stress that as per the mandate of Section-11 of the constitution, in case of urgency, the President had power to permit the discussion of such matters those were not included in the agenda. (iii) The perusal of Section-10 of the constitution would reveal that it contemplates two types of meetings i.e. Special General Meeting and Bi-ennial Meeting. As the present controversy hinges around the Special General Meeting only, so only the relevant portion of the Section-10 shall govern the controversy. The Special General Meeting has to be called at least once a year and at such time as summoned by the Executive Committee. Besides this, the Special General Meeting can also be called on the written request of 10 percent of the members of the total membership, by the Executive Committee. The perusal of Section-19 would reveal that it is the duty of the Secretary General to issue notice of the General Council Meetings as well as meetings of the Executive Committee. As per the mandate of Section-10 of the constitution, the Special General Meeting of the General Council shall be called at seven days notice. The perusal of Section-19 would reveal that it is the duty of the Secretary General to issue notice of the General Council Meetings as well as meetings of the Executive Committee. As per the mandate of Section-10 of the constitution, the Special General Meeting of the General Council shall be called at seven days notice. The said notice has been permitted to be served individually in addition to its publication in at least two leading dailies of the State seven days before the day fixed. The contention of the appellants is that the notice was not required to be published in the two leading dailies is contrary to the provision of the constitution, as there is a specific reference to the "Special General Meetings" and it would include not only the adjourned Special General Meeting but also the Special General Meeting convened at first. More so, there is no notice on record issued by the Secretary General of the CCI that the Special General Meeting was to be held on 19.12.2018 at Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu. Rather, no document has been brought on record by the appellants prior to the 19.12.2018 that could demonstrate that the meeting was to be held at Hotel Radisson Blu, Jammu on 19.12.2018 at a particular time. The appellants have sought to take refuge under the Agenda dated 11.12.2018, that the same was circulated to each member individually. Even the agenda dated 11.12.2018 is absolutely silent about the time, date and venue of the said meeting notwithstanding the fact that the Appellants have not been able to demonstrate as to the mode of circulation of agenda dated 11.12.2018 to each member individually seven days in advance with in such short span of time, that further casts doubt as to whether Agenda was circulated to all the members so as to enable them to know about the proposals to be considered in the meeting or not. (iv) It is the contention of Appellants that the Special General Meeting held on 19.12.2018 was called upon at the instance of the written request of 10 percent members of the CCI Jammu. (iv) It is the contention of Appellants that the Special General Meeting held on 19.12.2018 was called upon at the instance of the written request of 10 percent members of the CCI Jammu. Much stress was laid on Annexure-R-12, that it was the requisition made by 10 percent of the total members for convening a Special General Meeting but neither before the Trial Court nor before this Court, the appellants have been able to demonstrate as to the number of total members who had moved the said requisition and rather it was argued that the Trial Court could have counted the members itself, those who had moved the said requisition. It is strange that without being satisfied as to whether the said requisition was moved by 10 percent of the total members or not, the said meeting was called on 19.12.2018. It is beyond doubt that the meeting was to be convened by the Executive Committee and for that notice was required to be issued by Secretary General. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that such meeting was convened by Executive Committee and notice for such meeting was issued by Secretary General of CCI Jammu. (v) The next important issue is with regard to the resolutions/decisions taken in the impugned Special General Meeting on 19.12.2018. The stand of the appellants that more than 800 members participated in the said meeting and barring two members the decisions/resolutions were passed with one voice. The perusal of Section-10 of the constitution would reveal that quorum for Special General Meeting has been fixed at 1/3rd of the total membership on the register. The minimum members those were required to fill the quorum for meeting were 787 members. The stand of the appellants that more than 800 members participated in the meeting is belied by the Press-Release issued by them and got published by them in Daily Excelsior and Dainik Jagaran of editions dated 13.03.2019 relied upon by them and the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "Whereas a Special General meeting of Chamber of Commerce & Industry was held on December 19, 2018 at Hotel Radisson Blu, attended by 751 members including Executive Committee members and was video graphed too. The house discussed and deliberated on the agenda items and the following decisions were taken and approved by the house after marathon session out of 751 members only 2 members opposed the below mentioned decisions:- ......................." Thus, the contention of the appellants is not substantiated by the record produced and relied upon them but rather belied by the same. So at this stage, it can be safely inferred from the record of the Appellants that there were only 751 members present in the meeting, those were much less than the quorum requisite for holding the Special general meeting. (vi) Another contention of the Appellants that the term of the present office bearers was extended till March, 2021, was approved as the members in one voice demanded the same. It is argued that the said course was permissible as the section 11 of the constitution provided that any urgent matter that is not in the agenda can be discussed in the Special General Meeting with the approval of the President. It was also urged that there was no provision in the constitution that barred such extension. The perusal of Section 16 of the constitution reveals that the terms of the office bearers shall be two years and as per Section-10(B), Election Meeting is required to be held in the month of April after every two years except in case of natural/national calamity/wars to be justified in the meeting of the Executive Committee and in no case election meeting can be postponed for more than six months, meaning thereby that the office bearers elected once can continue their functioning for two and a half years in the event of contingencies as mentioned in the section itself. The mode adopted by the Appellants and Respondents 3-6 in extending their tenure is not permissible under Constitution of CCI. It is evident that in all the Requisitions annexed as Annexure-12 relied upon by the Appellants, it has been impressed upon that the meeting of the General House be called so that besides other demands, the demand of extension of office bearers be also made. Strangely enough, the agenda dated 11.12.2018 is absolutely silent about the proposal of extension of the term of the office bearers and rather there was item regarding the Forthcoming Elections. Strangely enough, the agenda dated 11.12.2018 is absolutely silent about the proposal of extension of the term of the office bearers and rather there was item regarding the Forthcoming Elections. No doubt the emergent matter can be discussed in the Special General Meeting with the permission of President but fact remains that the Appellant no.: 2 was aware about the requisition but still the proposal for extension of tenure was not included in Agenda and in the Resolution/decision dated 19.12.2018 there is reference to extension of tenure of office bearers without any reference to the urgency that necessitated the said decision. This gives valid reason to the Respondent nos.: 1 &2 to cry foul over the said decision/resolution and challenge the said decision/resolution being against the constitution. The contention of the Appellants that there is no bar for extension of tenure in constitution is misconceived as it would defeat the very purpose of section-16 read with Section-10 (B) of the Constitution that fixes the maximum term as two and half years. (vii) As per the mandate of Section 21 any proposal for the amendment of the constitution has to emanate from the Executive Committee after the notice of the same has been given to the Executive Committee. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that any such notice for alteration or addition to the constitution was first given to Executive Committee and pursuant to which proposed amendments were submitted before the General Council for the final decision. Thus the serious violations of the constitution in the convening of the Special General Meeting as well as the decisions/resolutions made in the said meeting are writ large and the appellants cannot be permitted to take benefit out of the same. (viii) The plea of substantial compliance of provisions of constitution in convening the meeting and the decisions/resolution passed there in, also fails in view of flagrant violations of the constitution. The judgment of Apex Court relied upon by the Appellants in case titled "Padmini Singha versus State of Assam" reported in MANU/SC/1089/2018 : 2018 (10) SCC 561 is not applicable in the present case. The Trial Court has considered all these vital aspects of the case and after detailed discussion of the same, arrived at the conclusion that the respondents No. 1 & 2 have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour. The Trial Court has considered all these vital aspects of the case and after detailed discussion of the same, arrived at the conclusion that the respondents No. 1 & 2 have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour. The said finding by the Trial Court cannot be termed as unreasonable and improbable and no fault can be found with the said finding. (ix) The Trial Court has determined the balance of convenience in favour of respondent Nos. 1 & 2. As already discussed, the mode and manner of convening the Special General Meeting and also the discussions/resolutions of the said meeting seem to be prima facie in violation of constitution of CCI Jammu, so it would be in the interest of the appellant No. 1 as also the members thereof including the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the decisions/resolutions of the impugned Special General Meeting are kept in abeyance, so as to ensure that the affairs of the CCI Jammu are conducted in accordance with its constitution. So the balance of convenience tilts in favour of respondent Nos. 1 & 2. It will be relevant to mention here that the proforma respondent Nos. 3 to 6, who were the other office bearers of the CCI have categorically stated that they have no grievance against the decision of the Trial Court. (x) The Trial Court has further returned a finding that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall suffer irreparable loss in the event of refusal of interim relief and no fault can be found with the said finding, as if the interim relief is denied to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 at this stage, it would certainly result into miscarriage and failure of justice because it would be impossible to put the clock back even if the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 ultimately succeed in the suit. (xi) The contention of the appellants that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have concealed the material facts from the Trial Court with regard to the constitution of Executive Committee as well as Presidium cannot be considered at this stage, as the constitution of the same has been specifically denied by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and no finding can be returned at this stage upon the said contention of the appellants because the same is a matter of trial being disputed question of facts. 1 & 2 and no finding can be returned at this stage upon the said contention of the appellants because the same is a matter of trial being disputed question of facts. More so, it is settled law that at the stage of grant/refusal of interim relief, the mini trial is not required to be conducted. Reliance is placed upon case titled "Anand Prasad Aggarwalla versus Tarkeshwar Prasad & Ors." reported in 2001 (5) SCC 568 in which Apex Court has held: "It may not be appropriate for any Court to hold mini trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction." 13. The grounds b) & c) mentioned above pertain to the maintainability of the suit those cannot be gone into while considering the issue of grant or refusal of interim relief, since the issues regarding the maintainability of the suit are required to be determined after the framing of issues by the Trial Court and not while considering the issue for grant or refusal of interim relief. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Apex Court in case titled "Babu Lal &ors versus M/s. Vijay Solvex & ors" reported in 2014 (16) SCC 680 in which it was held: "However, we are of the opinion that while dealing with a matter relating to vacation of order of temporary injunction, it was not open for the High Court to give a finding on the main issue relating to maintainability of the suit and the family settlement reached between the parties." 14. Mr. Johal Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued about the locus of the respondent Nos.: 1 and 2 to file the suit and seek temporary injunction, while admitting them to be the principal members of the Appellant no: 1 on the ground that only 2 members have filed the instant suit as against the 2800 members of the Appellant no.: 1. The mere fact that the Respondent Nos. 1&2 being the principal members of the CCI Jammu have every right to ensure that the Office bearers of CCI Jammu do not violate the mandate of Constitution, grants them locus to seek temporary injunction. Learned Senior Counsel has placed much reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in case titled "Margaret Almeida & ors. versus Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr." reported in 2013 (6) SCC 538 . Learned Senior Counsel has placed much reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in case titled "Margaret Almeida & ors. versus Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr." reported in 2013 (6) SCC 538 . The dispute in the said case was not with regard to the violations of the provisions of the Constitution of Society, as is in the present case, therefore the judgment is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The ground d) is regarding the contention of the appellants that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have acquiesced in the extension of the tenure of the appellant Nos. 2&3 and proforma respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as the respondent No. 1 in the month of June, 2019 went to Tashkent Uzbekistan along with appellant No. 2 where appellant No. 2 was elected as President of JKJCCI. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that as per mandate of Section 41(g) no injunction could have been granted by the Trial Court. There is no doubt that the provisions of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act can be attracted at the threshold to cases where there is no dispute with regard to the facts which would attract the application of relevant provision of Section 41 barring the jurisdiction of the Court in regard to the granting of injunction but where the facts are disputed and require proof, the bar cannot be invoked at threshold. In the case at hand, the fact pleaded by the defendant requires proof, that is a matter of trial and there is nothing on record except the Air ticket that could justify the contention of the appellants, as such Section 41(g) of Specific Relief Act cannot come to the rescue of the appellants at this stage. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the respondent Nos. 1 &2 did not challenge the Special General Meeting for more than a year and as such by their conduct they are not entitled to grant of any interim injunction as per the mandate of Section 41(i) of Specific Relief Act. It is mentionable here that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed a suit for declaration and not injunction simpliciter. More so, it is not the case of the appellants that the respondent Nos. It is mentionable here that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed a suit for declaration and not injunction simpliciter. More so, it is not the case of the appellants that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were instrumental in convening and holding of the Special General Meeting on 19.12.2018 leading to the passing of impugned resolutions/decisions. As such, even Section 41(i) also shall not disentitle the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to seek injunction at this stage. 16. The ground f) is regarding the contention of the appellants that while passing the order impugned, the learned Trial Court has passed the final decree. The perusal of the reliefs sought by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 make it clear that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have not only sought the relief of declaration but also the relief of mandatory injunction for holding the elections of the General Council. Also the Trial Court has simply kept the decisions/resolution passed in Special General Meeting impugned in abeyance. So it cannot be said that the Court below has passed the final decree while passing the order impugned. The Trial Court may have granted the substantial relief but that does not amount to the final relief. In the present case, if the interim relief is refused to the Respondent nos.: 1 and 2 then it would amount to miscarriage of justice and would result in apparent violation of the constitution of CCI Jammu. No doubt, the practice of granting the final relief at interim stage has been deprecated by the Apex Court but at the same time there is no absolute bar even in granting the final relief at interim stage provided the fool proof case for the same is made out. The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in "Deoraj versus State of Maharashtra" reported in 2004 (4) SCC 697 is required to be taken note of and the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "11. The Courts and Tribunals seized of the proceedings within their jurisdiction take a reasonable time in disposing of the same. This is on account of fair procedure requirement which involves delay intervening between the previous and the next procedural steps leading towards preparation of case for hearing. Then, the Courts are also over burdened and their hands are full. The Courts and Tribunals seized of the proceedings within their jurisdiction take a reasonable time in disposing of the same. This is on account of fair procedure requirement which involves delay intervening between the previous and the next procedural steps leading towards preparation of case for hearing. Then, the Courts are also over burdened and their hands are full. As the conclusion of hearing on merits is likely to take some time, the parties press for interim relief being granted in the interregnum An order of interim relief may or may not be a reasoned one but the factors of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience do work at the back of the mind of the one who passes an order of interim nature. Ordinarily, the Court is inclined to maintain status quo as obtaining on the date of the commencement of the proceedings. However, there are a few cases which call for the Court's leaning not in favour of maintaining the status quo and still lesser in percentage are the cases when an order tantamounting to a mandamus is required to be issued even at an interim stage. There are matters of significance and of moment posing themselves as moment of truth. Such cases do cause dilemma and put the wits of any Judge to test. 12. Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case - of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent." 17. In view of above, the findings recorded by the trial court appear as reasonable conclusions on the basis of relevant material available before the Trial Court. The order impugned suffers from no legal infirmity as the trial Court has passed the same well within the domains of law. However in present times due to Covid 19 pandemic, it is imperative that the CCI Jammu is able to disseminate the information provided by the Government Authorities for ensuring the compliance of safety norms for business establishments and also the other information that may be necessary for the welfare of the members of the CCI Jammu, so it would be in the interest of CCI Jammu as well as its members, that someone is authorised to do so. As the Respondent no.: 5 has been authorised by the Trial Court to operate the bank account, so he is further authorised to inform the members of CCI Jammu about the Government instructions/policies issued from time to time, through print or electronic media and while doing so he would not represent himself as Secretary General of CCI Jammu. Further Trial Court shall be at liberty to modify/alter this part of the order without any reference to this Court on the motion of either of the parties. Any observation made herein is solely for the purpose of disposal of present Appeal and shall have no bearing upon the final disposal of the suit. The order impugned is modified only to the extent mentioned above without disturbing the directions contained in the same. Appeal stands disposed of along with connected applications.