[ad_1]
Litigant additionally insists on punishing prime brass of the get together for alleged willful disobedience of orders handed by the court docket on June 23
Litigant additionally insists on punishing prime brass of the get together for alleged willful disobedience of orders handed by the court docket on June 23
The Madras Excessive Courtroom is slated to listen to on Monday a plea to restrain All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) from convening its common council assembly on July 11. The court docket may also take a name on staying the appointment of A. Tamil Magan Hussain because the presidium chairman of the get together.
Justices M. Duraiswamy and Sunder Mohan would additionally take up for listening to an software filed by common council member M. Shanmugum to punish get together leaders Edappadi Okay. Palaniswami, C.Ve. Shanmugam, Okay.P. Munusamy, Mr. Hussain, D. Jayakumar and Dindigul C. Sreenivasan for alleged contempt of court docket.
Submitting a collection of sub purposes in a pending authentic facet attraction, the litigant instructed the court docket the get together’s founder M.G. Ramachandran had meant that its supremo ought to all the time get elected by the first members and due to this fact the bylaws of the get together had been additionally drafted to replicate his intention.
Accordingly, former Chief Ministers O. Panneerselvam and Mr. Palaniswami had been collectively elected as coordinator and joint coordinator respectively of the get together by means of a single vote course of in December 2021. Such election course of needed to be ratified by the get together’s common council that met on June 23 this yr.
Nevertheless, when information leaked within the media that there was a plan to move a decision in favour of unitary management throughout the June 23 meet, the litigant filed a civil go well with within the Excessive Courtroom on June 22 and sought an interim order restraining the get together from passing any such decision within the common council.
A single choose of the Excessive Courtroom refused to move any such interim order. Nevertheless, on attraction, the Division Bench led by Justice Duraiswamy restrained the final council from taking a choice on any new decision however for 23 draft resolutions that had been authorized by the get together coordinator Mr. Panneerselvam.
The order was handed at 4:40 a.m. on June 23 after a particular listening to held on the choose’s residence and it was communicated to the counsel representing the get together and its leaders. But, in defiance of the court docket order, Mr. Palaniswami moved a decision to nominate Mr. Hussain as presidium chairman and it was seconded by Mr. Jayakumar and Mr. Sreenivasan, the litigant claimed.
Those that seconded the decision additionally claimed it was unanimously accepted by the final council. Stating that the appointment of Mr. Hussain was not a part of the 23 draft resolutions, which the court docket had permitted the final council to debate, the litigant claimed Mr. Palaniswami, Mr. Jayakumar and Mr. Sreenivasan had due to this fact wilfully disobeyed court docket orders.
He contended Mr. Hussain was additionally responsible of contempt because the latter, after being appointed as presidium chairman, introduced that the subsequent common council meet can be held on July 11. The very appointment of Mr. Hussain was “contemptuous” and his additional motion reveals “unpardonable audacity and nefarious plot” for circumventing court docket orders, the litigant stated.
The litigant sought to punish Mr. Munusamy for asserting that each one 23 draft resolutions had been rejected by the final council, with out even issuing a replica of these resolutions to all members, in addition to stating that the get together wished unitary management and {that a} decision to that impact can be handed within the subsequent common council meet.
He accused former Legislation Minister C.Ve. Mr. Shanmugam of getting introduced that each Mr. Panneerselvam and Mr. Palaniswami had ceased to be the coordinator and joint coordinator of the get together since their election in December 2021 had not been authorized by the final council.
The litigant additionally accused Mr. Shanmugam of claiming the newly appointed presidium chairman was absolutely competent to convene the subsequent common council meet and that additional selections can be taken in that meet.
“The respondents can’t be permitted to pursue any motion that’s primarily based on disobedience of the order of this honourable court docket,” the litigant stated and sought to restrain the conduct of the subsequent common council meet on July 11 in addition to punishing the leaders for contempt and staying the appointment of Mr. Hussain as presidium chairman.
[ad_2]
Source link
