EGM votes may be counted using the membership list as it stood on the requisition date.

On 6 February 2025, the plaintiff and 30 other members requisitioned an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the Madras Medical Mission.

The General Board then had 147 members.

The Society subsequently altered its membership, and the notice convening the EGM on 4 March 2025 reflected 171 members.

The plaintiff alleged that suspensions and changes to the membership list could make the requisition fall below the required one-fifth threshold and affect the voting.

He sued to challenge the EGM notice and sought interim injunctive relief.

On 27 March 2025, the District Munsif restrained the Society from using the remote e-voting system during the specified period, but permitted the EGM to proceed if quorum was present.

In an earlier interim order, the High Court allowed voting to continue but directed that the results be kept in abeyance.

The Society later clarified that it would not invalidate the requisition by relying on the increased membership and would count only votes of members as at 6 February 2025.

The Court considered Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, and Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which provides an appeal remedy against specified orders, including interim injunction orders.

It also considered Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, under which interim injunctive relief is assessed by reference to matters including prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

The Court observed that it would ordinarily not entertain an Article 227 revision against an Order XXXIX interim order when an appeal remedy is available, but proceeded to decide the revisions in the circumstances, including its prior interim order and the clarifications given by the Society.

The Court further treated disputes concerning membership changes and quorum as matters requiring separate proceedings or evidence where they were not properly determinable in the present interlocutory proceedings.

The Court held that the Society’s clarifications addressed the central concern that later membership additions would defeat the requisition: the requisition would not be treated as below the one-fifth threshold, and votes of members added after 6 February 2025 would not be counted.

The e-voting had already taken place over three days, and the voters had exercised their rights; stopping the process at that stage could cause hardship to the Society, while the outcome of the vote remained unknown.

The Court therefore found the balance of convenience in favour of allowing the voting process to be completed and its results announced.

It declined to determine the legality of suspensions, removals, or additions to membership because those matters were outside the suit’s scope and could be pursued independently.

It likewise left the quorum-related validity of the EGM and resolutions for determination on evidence if challenged.

It dismissed CRP No. 1656 of 2025, which sought to restrain the EGM even if quorum was present.

The plaintiff and other affected members were left to pursue separate remedies concerning their suspensions or other grievances.