Anu Varghese vs Babu Daniel

OSA No. 228 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA Nos. 228 & 229 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA011300632022}
and CMP Nos. 13835 & 13838 OF 2022
Anu Varghese
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Babu Daniel
2. The Madras Medical Mission
NO.4-A, Dr.J.Jayalalitha Nagar, Mogappair
East, Chennai 600 037.
3. The Hon.Secretary(Interim)
The Madras Medical Mission, NO.4-A,
Dr.J.Jayalalitha Nagar, Mogappair East,
Chennai 600 037.
4. Cherian Abraham
..Respondent(s)
OSA No. 229 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA011300622022}
Cherian Abraham
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Babu Daniel
2. The Madras Medical Mission
NO.4-A, Dr.J.Jayalalitha Nagar, Mogappair
East, Chennai 600 037.
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
3. The Hon.Secretary
The Madras Medical Mission, NO.4-A,
Dr.J.Jayalalitha Nagar, Mogappair East,
Chennai 600 037.
4. Anu Varghese
..Respondent(s)
OSA No. 228 of 2022 has been filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of OS Rules
read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 10.08.2022
passed in Application No.2324 of 2021 in O.A.No.816 of 2019 in C.S.No.523
of 2019.
OSA No. 229 of 2022 has been filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of OS Rules
read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 10.08.2022
passed in Application No.2324 of 2021 in O.A.No.816 of 2019 in C.S.No.523
of 2019.
In all OSAs
For Appellant(s): Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan
For Respondent(s): Mr.Davidson Devashish for R1
Mr.D.Ferdinand for
M/s.BFS Legal for R2 & R3
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.08.2022
allowing the application in A.No.2324 of 2021 in C.S.No.523 of 2019 filed by
the first respondent herein, directing the retention of the appellants/respondents
3 and 4 therein in Civil Prison for a period of one month, the present appeals
have been filed by the respondents 3 and 4 therein.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
2. The appellant in OSA.No.228 of 2022 namely Anu Varghese is the
fourth respondent and the appellant in OSA.No.229 of 2022 namely Cherian
Abraham is the third respondent in the above application, A.No.2324 of 2021.
Similarly, the first respondent in these appeals is the plaintiff in C.S.No.523 of
2019 and the appellant in OSA.No.229 of 2022 is the third defendant in
C.S.No.523 of 2019.
3. Brief facts leading to filing the appeal is as follows:-
3.a. The Madras Medical Mission is a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act on 12.01.1982. The appellant is a life time member
of the Society from 1996 and he has also been in the Governing Board from
2001 to 2016 and was heading the Audit Committee of the society. As per the
rules and regulations of the society, the Governing Board of the Society has
control over affairs and funds of the Society. One Dr.K.Jacob was elected as
Honorary Secretary of the Board on 15.01.2009 and the fourth respondent was
elected as Honorary Treasurer of the Board on 09.10.2010 and they were
dealing with financial matters of the Society, but however, some of the
Members of the Board were not satisfied with their functioning. Therefore, in
an Extraordinary General Body Meeting held on 17.09.2017, a Money
Committee was appointed by the General Body to inquire into the financial
matters of the Society and one Dr.Suja Issac was appointed as a Convener by
the President Bishop, vide letter dated 19.09.2017. The Money Committee
found out the financial irregularities amounting to Rs.186.63 Crores, therefore,
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
Extraordinary General Body Meeting was held on 22.06.2019 by the 33
Members of the Society, whereby it was resolved to appoint 5-Member
Committee to grant, short-list and select a professional agent to conduct a
forensic audit of the financial affairs of the Society. Further, by another
resolution, Dr.Jacob and Mr.Cherian Abraham were suspended from all
positions held by them with the Society. Resolution was approved by the
President of the first respondent-Society and the same was informed to both
Dr.K.Jacob and Mr.Cherian Abraham by the President, vide letter dated
23.06.2019. The fourth respondent, by a requisition letter dated 18.07.2019,
requested the Governing Board for conducting an EGM to discuss on the
proceedings of the Extraordinary General Meeting dated 22.06.2019 and to
recall of the resolution passed at the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting on that
day. Since the Governing Board took a decision on 16.08.2019 not to convene
the EGM, the fourth respondent issued a notice dated 17.08.2019 for an EGM to
be convened on 08.09.2019.
3.b. Challenging the notice dated 17.08.2019, the Plaintiff/applicant has
filed the suit on the ground that it is not in consonance with Section 28 of the
Societies Registration Act; the third respondent did not challenge the
appointment of the Money Committee report in the year 2017; the appointment
of Forensic Audit and suspension of the third respondent and Dr.K.Jacob and it
is against the By-laws of the Society. Therefore, the Plaintiff/first respondent
has filed the suit in C.S.No.523 of 2019 and also an Application in O.A.No.816
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
of 2019 seeking for an interim injunction for conducting the EGM on
08.09.2019. This Court vide order dated 06.09.2019 granted interim injunction.
Aggrieved, the fourth respondent has filed an appeal in O.S.A.No.238 of 2019
and the same was dismissed on 14.12.2020. Thereafter, the appellant along with
other requisitionists, by letter dated 29.03.2021, intimated about the convening
of EGM Meeting to all the members of the society. Accordingly, the EGM
meetings convened and conducted by the appellant from 23.04.2021 to
25.04.2021. Therefore, convening of such EGM meeting is in sheer violation,
utter disregard and grave disobedience of the injunction order of this Court,
dated 06.09.2019. Therefore, the application was filed in O.A.No.2324 of 2021,
seeking to punish the appellants/respondents 3 and 4 for their willful
disobedience and defiance of the order of this Court in O.A.No.816 of 2018,
dated 06.09.2019.
3.c. It is the contention of the appellants in the impugned applications that
the Resolution passed in the EGM on 22.06.2019 is illegal resolution and the
decision was taken by a small majority of members and therefore, resolution has
to be recalled. The validity and legality of the EGM held on 23.04.2021 was
questioned by the Plaintiff by filing a separate suit in C.S.No.159 of 2021.
Though this Court had initially injuncted the said EGM and consequently the
results of the said EGM has been stayed by order dated 01.10.2021 in
O.A.No.251 of 2021 for implementing the results of the EGM. Aggrieved by
the same, OSA No.316 of 2021 has been filed, in which the Division Bench had
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
stayed the order of the learned Single Judge and therefore, the results of the
EGM were revived. Therefore, according to the appellants herein the fact
whether the EGM called on 23.04.2021 is valid or not is a matter for
consideration and the same was pending before the Division Bench in
O.S.A.No.316 of 2021. Therefore, there is no contempt whatsoever made out.
3.d. The learned Single Judge, however, taking note of the fact that
despite the injunction order passed in O.A.No.816 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019,
the appellants herein have conducted the meeting, therefore held that since there
was a violation, they should be ordered to be detained in the Civil Prison.
Challenging the said order, the present appeals have been filed.
4. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel submitted that on 22.06.2019,
only minority members convened the EGM and passed certain resolution,
however, later EGM was convened by majority of the members of the Society
and notice has been issued on 08.09.2019. This Court in O.A.No.816 of 2019
has granted interim injunction restraining the appellant in OSA.No.229 of 2022
from conducting the EGM on 08.09.2019 at 7pm and he would submit that no
EGM has been conducted on that particular day, whereas, majority of the
members have called for the meeting and in pursuant of the same, EGM was
held on 23.04.2021 and the said EGM resolution was also questioned by the
applicant in a separate suit in CS.No.159 of 2021. Though the learned Single
Judge has initially injuncted the said EGM vide order dated 01.10.2021 in
OA.No.251 of 2021, appeal has been filed in OSA.No.316 of 2021, wherein, the
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
Division Bench had stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Hence, it is the contention that results of the EGM were revived
and whether the factum of EGM was called on 23.04.2021 is valid or not is a
matter for consideration and the same is pending before the Division Bench in
OSA.No.316 of 2021 and thus, would submit that the appellants should not
have been punished for violating the orders.
5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
submitted that the learned Single Judge in OA.No.816 of 2019 specifically
restrained the appellant in OSA.No.229 of 2022 from convening EGM to be
held on 08.09.2019. Though the said judgment has been challenged, the same
has been affirmed in a Division Bench also. Even thereafter, EGM has been
conducted, challenging the same, the first respondent filed a suit in C.S.No.159
of 2021. Hence, would submit that though the main suit itself is disposed of,
since the breach has been committed by the appellants, the learned Single Judge
punished the appellants which does not require interference. Hence, seeks for
dismissal of these appeals.
6. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants and the learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 and Nos.2 and 3. and perused the materials
placed on record
7. In light of the above, now the point that arise for consideration in these
appeals is :-
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
(i) Is there any willful disobedience established to punish the appellants
under Order XXXIX CPC Rule 2A of CPC?
8. The impugned application has been taken out by the first respondent
seeking to punish the appellants herein in A.N.2324 of 2021 in CS.No.523 of
2019. The application has been mainly proceeded as if the interim injunction
granted by this Court in the above application has been breached and there was
a wilful disobedience by the respondents 3 and 4 in the application. It is relevant
to note that in the suit in C.S.No.523 of 2019 only three parties were made as
defendants. The appellant in OSA.No.229 of 2022 is made as third defendant
and the other appellant, i.e., OSA.No.228 of 2022 namely Anu Varghese was
not made as a party to the suit. The injunction granted in the above application
is binding only to the parties of the suit and admittedly, the appellant in
OSA.No.228 of 2022/Anu Varghese is not a party to the suit.
9. Be that as it may, the main contention of the learned counsel for the
respondents is that there was wilful disobedience shown by the respondent that
despite the order of injunction, EGM was convened by the appellants herein. It
is relevant to note that the suit in CS.No.523 of 2019 was filed by the first
respondent herein challenging the notice dated 17.08.2019 issued by the third
defendant calling for an EGM to be held on 08.09.2019. The plaintiff therein
filed OA.No.816 of 2019 seeking interim injunction restraining the EGM to be
held on 08.09.2019 and this Court vide order dated 06.09.2019 restrained the
third defendant from convening EGM to be held on 08.09.2019. This order has
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
reached finality which has not been disputed by filing OSA against the said
order in OSA.No.238 of 2019, wherein, the interim injunction granted by the
learned Single Judge was affirmed. Though the application has been proceeded
for punishment for willful disobedience on the ground that despite the order of
interim injunction restraining the EGM to be held on 08.09.2019, it is relevant
to note that there is no materials placed before the learned Single Judge or
before this Court to show that EGM was conducted on 08.09.2019 breaching the
order of the injunction, therefore, we are of the view that once there was no
EGM conducted on that particular day which the appellant in OSA.No.229 of
2022 was restrained, willful disobedience cannot be inferred merely because
subsequent change of circumstances; and the facts placed before us clearly
indicate that majority members have been subsequently called for the EGM
which was held on 23.04.2021 and certain resolutions have been passed.
10. The notice for convening the meeting to be held on 23.04.2021 was
challenged in a separate suit in C.S.No.159 of 2021, wherein, the application in
OA.No.251 of 2021 was filed seeking interim injunction from conducting the
EGM on 23.04.2021 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.10.2021
held that the resolution passed in the meeting held on 23.04.2021 will have no
legal effect and the same is incapable of being legally enforced and the matter
was posted for filing written statement. The said order was challenged in
OSA.No.316 of 2021, wherein, this Court in OA.No.251 of 2021 in C.S.No.159
of 2021 vide order dated 16.11.2021 stayed the order dated 01.10.2021 passed
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
by the learned Single Judge and subsequently, the OSA itself was disposed of
by judgment dated 18.07.2025 holding that interim injunction granted by this
Court is in force and the same will continue till the disposal of the suit and
therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge annulling the resolution, by way
of orders of the Division Bench has been revived and thus, meeting held later on
23.04.2021 and the resolution passed therein is now under challenge in the
pending suit in CS.No.159 of 2021.
11. It is relevant to note that CS.No.523 of 2019 originally filed
challenging the earlier notice dated 17.08.2019 calling for EGM on 08.09.2019
is also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 23.02.2024
holding that since the EGM is conveyed and minutes are already passed nothing
survives for adjudication in the suit. Therefore, we are of the view that when the
very suit filed challenging the notice calling for EGM itself is dismissed, the
interim injunction passed in the suit restraining the third defendant therein from
conducting the EGM on a particular date and merely because EGM was
conducted at a later point of time which was permitted by the Court in a
separate suit; later the resolution passed by the said EGM held to be
unenforceable by the learned Single Judge was also stayed by the Division
Bench in OSA.No.316 of 2021 and the Division Bench had also disposed of the
appeal vide judgment dated 18.07.2025, we are of the view that there is no
wilful disobedience of the order dated 06.09.2019 in O.A.No.816 of 2019 IN
C.S.No.523 of 2019, particularly, when no EGM was conducted on that specific
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
date in which the order of injunction restrained one of the appellant herein.
Furthermore, the EGM was also conducted by the majority of the members on
the later date in the year 2021 and considering all these aspects, we are of the
view that this aspect has not been diverted by the learned Single Judge. Hence,
in the absence of any willful disobedience of an order, a person cannot be
punished.
12. The suit filed by the respondent itself is dismissed and the resolution
passed later are also put to challenge in a separate suit in C.S.No.159 of 2021, in
such view of the matter, we are of the view that in the absence of willful
disobedience established, the appellants cannot be punished for the EGM which
was conducted at a later point of time by the majority of the members and
further, it is also to be noted that one of the appellant is also not a party to the
suit, wherein, the injunction was granted restraining the appellant in
OSA.No.229 of 2022. Considering all these aspects, the order of the learned
Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly the same is
set aside.
13. In the result, these original side appeals stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
(N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.)
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dhk
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )

OSA No. 228 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
AND
GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J.
dhk
OSA Nos. 228 & 229 of 2022
28-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 03:57:59 pm )