Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2016 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURTOppression and mismanagement - petitioners contend that the entire paper ballot is bad in law - question of law v/s question of facts - Held that:- On the face of the order of the CLB, it can be seen that considering the poll on the day, the 7th respondent was declared to have lost. It was also observed that he did not raise any objections during the voting. So the CLB has held that no prima facie case was made out. It has considered the questions of law but has only refrained itself from adjudicating on the issue of voting pattern for the time being. The CLB has given findings on all the tests required for grant of interim reliefs. It is not necessary for the CLB to specifically use the words, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. It is sufficient if specific findings on the tests are given. Upon perusal of the order it is clear that the CLB has given findings in page 6, 7 and 8 of its order. Therefore, this court does not agree with the contentions of the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the CLB has not considered the questions raised before it. In so far as the personal grievance of the 7th respondent is concerned, there are specific findings in para 6 of the order of the CLB at pages 6 and 7 of the order. The communication of the 7th respondent has been referred to in page 7 of the order of the CLB indicating that the grievance is not just the elections. Again considering all these aspects only, this court in a nutshell held that there is no perversity in the findings of the CLB and the questions raised are not pure questions of law. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference. In so far as oppression is concerned, any decision on the same can be arrived at only if the other questions are decided. On the face of it, the 7th respondent has been permitted to participate in the elections and his family members have been permitted to vote. Therefore, again mindful of the prejudice, that may be caused before the CLB, this court held in para 23 that the same would have to be decided by the CLB during the final hearing. The CLB has exercised its discretion against the appellants after giving reasons. Even if prima facie case, regarding a question of law is made out, the interim relief can be denied. All the tests required for grant of interim relief must be satisfied. This court has already given its findings in Paragraphs 18 and 19. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court has only held that no pure question of law have been raised. The above only implies that the decision on the question of law is dependent on appraisal and decisions on various facts and interpretation of the provision and will of the parties regarding the election process. Hence, there is no error in the findings of this court. On consideration of facts, no new grounds have been made out and the points agitated were already negated by this Court in its earlier order. An attempt is only now made to re-appreciate the same contentions. The applications to review cannot be used as a substitute to file an appeal.
|