The AIADMK’s expelled leader, O. Panneerselvam, suffered yet another setback on Thursday, with a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing his appeal challenging a single judge’s November 7, 2023 order restraining him from using the party’s flag, election symbol and letterhead.
Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq said the single judge had granted the interim injunction, at his discretion, only for a limited period. Hence, such an order would not fall under the definition of the term, ‘judgment,’ found in the Letters Patent, to be assailed through an appeal.
The judges agreed with senior counsel Vijay Narayan, representing AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami who was the respondent in the appeal, that the only remedy available to Mr. Panneerselvam was to file an application before the single judge for vacating the interim injunction.
The Division Bench granted liberty to the appellant to approach the single judge by filing an application to vacate the injunction and said that if any such application gets filed, “the learned judge shall consider and pass appropriate orders on own merits and in accordance with law”. In his grounds of appeal, the appellant had contended that he could not be restrained from using the AIADMK’s flag, election symbol and letterhead when a suit filed by him challenging his expulsion was still pending before the High Court.
However, the Bench, led by Justice Mahadevan, refrained from dealing with the merits of the case and said the present appeal ought not to have been filed before it by invoking Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
“The law is well settled that when no final orders have been passed by the learned judge determining any right or liability, affecting the merits of the disputes between the parties, no appeal would lie under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,” the verdict authored by the senior judge in the Bench read.
“...The order passed by the learned judge, as an interim measure, is based on a sound discretion vested on him and in the interest of justice. Such discretion exercised by the learned judge cannot be normally interfered with by the appellate forum unless it is pointed out that the order was passed on the basis of irrelevant materials...,” the Bench said.
It further said the interim injunction having been granted only for a limited time made it clear that the single judge wanted to grant an opportunity of hearing to Mr. Panneerselvam before passing final orders on the injunction applications moved by Mr. Palaniswami.
“...Averments raised in the present appeals that the learned judge did not grant sufficient opportunity to the appellant to put forth his submissions cannot be countenanced. It is always open to the appellant to file his counter-statement to the applications filed by the respondent seeking interim injunction...,” the Bench concluded.
