M. SUDAKAR versus V. MANOHARAN & ORS.

M. SUDAKAR versus V. MANOHARAN & ORS.

The Trust's bye-laws only provide for removal of membership and do not authorize debarring a member from holding office for a specified period; thus, the resolution debarring the appellant for ten years was patently illegal. Delay and latches do not bar the court's jurisdiction under Article 226, especially where relief continues to be relevant, and the Single Judge was correct in moulding relief to quash the impugned resolution.

Parties
Appellant: M. Sudakar; Respondents: V. Manoharan & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Bye Laws Interpretation, Jurisdiction of Writ Courts, Delay and Latches in Writ Petitions, Power to Mould Relief Under Article 226
Trusts Constitutional Law Bye Laws Interpretation Jurisdiction of Writ Courts Delay and Latches in Writ Petitions Power to Mould Relief Under Article 226

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Sudakar

Appellant

V. Manoharan & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trust's General Body is empowered by the bye-laws to debar a member from holding any office for a fixed period
  2. 2 Whether delay/latches bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
  3. 3 Whether relief can be moulded by the High Court even if the original prayer becomes infructuous

Ratio Decidendi

The Trust's bye-laws only provide for removal of membership and do not authorize debarring a member from holding office for a specified period; thus, the resolution debarring the appellant for ten years was patently illegal. Delay and latches do not bar the court's jurisdiction under Article 226, especially where relief continues to be relevant, and the Single Judge was correct in moulding relief to quash the impugned resolution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of the Division Bench set aside
  • Order of the Single Judge restored