The AIADMK’s expelled leader, O. Panneerselvam, has contended before the Madras High Court that he cannot be restrained from using the party flag, symbol and letterhead, when a civil suit filed by him challenging his expulsion from the party is still pending in the High Court.
“The merits of the July 11, 2022 decision of the party’s general council in resolving to expel me and my followers is necessarily a matter for trial,” he said. So far the High Court had refused to pass only interim orders in his favour in the suit filed last year. Even this refusal had been challenged in the Supreme Court and the matter is expected to be heard shortly, he said.
In such circumstances, Mr. Panneerselvam contended, a single judge ought not have granted an interim injunction on November 7, 2023 against his use of the flag, symbol and letterhead. The interim injunction had caused great prejudice to him and his supporters, he said.
The contentions have been raised in an appeal listed for hearing before the third Division Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq on Wednesday, November 15, 2023.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar had granted the injunction, till November 30, on a civil suit filed by AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami in September this year, to restrain Mr. Panneerselvam from claiming to be the coordinator or even a primary member of the AIADMK.
Mr. Palaniswami also sought to restrain the expelled leader from interfering with his functioning as the general secretary of the party besides seeking an injunction against the use of the party flag, symbol and letterhead. Justice Kumar granted all three interim reliefs, leading to the present appeal.
Assailing the injunction orders, Mr. Panneerselvam claimed that the interim relief had been granted by the judge without even satisfying himself with respect to the existence of a prima facie case in favour of Mr. Palaniswami and the issues of balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
“The order passed by the learned judge is contrary to law, erroneous and if allowed to stand would occasion in failure of justice,” Mr. Panneerselvam said and argued that Mr. Palaniswami ought not to have sought such an injunction solely on the basis of interim orders passed by the High Court in the 2022 suit.
“The leamed judge ought to have found that interim orders, unlike final orders, may be altered in subsequent proceedings and therefore the same could not form the basis of the claims made by the respondent (Mr. Palaniswami),” the grounds of appeal filed by Mr. Panneerselvam read.
