Tamil Nadu Soft Tennis Association v. The District Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :28.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA W.P.Nos.47022 of 2025 and 1694 of 2026 Tamil Nadu Soft Tennis Association, Represented by its Secretary, D.Mouneshwari, No.34, Vaikundapuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.47022 of 2024 Tamil Nadu Soft Tennis Association, Represented by Secretary, No.96, Greenways Road, Fairlands Road, Salem 636 016 ....Petitioner in W.P.No.1694 of 2026 Vs The District Registrar, Registrar of Societies Central, Chennai-600 014
...Respondent-1 in both petitions
Tami Nadu Soft Tennis Association, Rep.by its General Secretary, Kavitha Sembannan, 2/94, Geetha Nagar, Mohan Nagar Post, Salem Steel Plant, Salem - 636030
...Respondent-2 in both petitions
(R2 impleaded vide order dated 28.01.2026 made in WMP.Nos.2039 and 3145 of 2026 45/2026 in WP.Nos.47022 of 2025 and 1694/2026) 1/10
Prayer in W.P.No.47022 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to register the executive committee of the Tamil Nadu Soft Tennis Association considering the representation given by the petitioner to the respondent dated 13.03.2019. Prayer in W.P.No.1694 of 2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to cancel the Form VII and consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2025 For Petitioner : Mr.STR Ajay Sharma in both WPs For Respondent-1: Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu in both WPs Government Advocate For Respondent-2 in both W.Ps : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman for M/s.K.Priya 2/10
ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to register the Executive Committee of the Tamil Nadu Soft Tennis Association and to cancel the Form VII based on the petitioner's representations dated 13.03.2019 and 29.12.2025.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-Association is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The election to the Executive Committee was validly conducted in accordance with the by-laws by the competent authority, namely the Secretary and the duly elected Executive Committee was forwarded for registration. However, the Registrar of Societies refused to register the same on the ground of existence of two factions, relying upon a rival list submitted by an unauthorised person. The petitioner would further 3/10
submit that such refusal is arbitrary, contrary to the by-laws and the Act, especially when the dispute relating to the Association is already the subject matter of O.S.No.135 of 2024.
3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, with reference to the very same relief, a suit had been filed in O.S.No.135 of 2016 by the petitioner-Association, represented by the elected representatives against the person who claims to be the Secretary of the Association and others, on the file of the II Additional District Judge at Salem. The relief claimed in the above suit is as follows:- a) declaring that the plaintiffs 2 to 20 are the duly elected members of the governing body of the 1st plaintiff; b) restraining the defendants- 1 to 9 by means of a permanent injunction from in any manner interfering with the functioning of the plaintiffs 2 to 20 as the governing body of the 1st plaintiff;
c) declaring that the defendants 1 to 9 are not duly elected members of the Executive Committee of the 1st plaintiff society;
4/10
d)restraining the defendants 1 to 9 by means of a permanent injunction from in any manner functioning as the governing body of the 1st plaintiff society:
d) awarding costs of the suit.
4.
The Annual General Body Meeting in which the petitioner's faction has elected the office bearers and the election conducted by the respondents' faction, is the subject of the above suit and this Court by order dated 19.12.2024 in C.R.P.No.5079 of 2024 had directed the II Additional Judge, Salem to pass orders at the earliest, considering the fact that the plaintiffs' chief examination had been completed and the matter was posted for cross examination by the defendants who at that juncture had taken out an application for rejecting the plaint. The learned Judge has also observed that the dispute is purely a civil in nature, which has to be resolved only by the Court. He has observed as follows in paragraph Nos. 12 and 15: "12.The word "Court" has been used not less than 18 times in the Societies Registration Act, including Section 2 (b). The Sections are 22, 41(3), 42, 44(6), 44(7) & 45 (2). The purpose of Section 2(b) is 5/10
to define as to which "Court" the proceedings must be initiated with reference to the aforesaid sections, which include any challenge made to the orders passed under the Societies Registration Act. The Societies Registration Act does not deal with resolution of civil disputes. Those disputes are to be resolved only by the courts. 15.The plea raised by the civil revision petitioner that the suit is barred by the Societies Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder does not appeal to me. This is because, the right to an office is in dispute. The said right cannot be adjudicated by a Registrar under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act or by the District Court under the said Act as there is no provision enabling or empowering the District Judge to give such a relief.
This relief should appropriately be granted only by a Civil Court as held by the Full Bench of this Court in CMS Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Vs. The District Registrar Cheranmahadevi and four others reported in (2005 ) 2 MLJ335 (FB)."
returned to the District Munsif Court, Salem. Ultimately, the learned Judge had passed the following directions in paragraph 17. "17. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman points out that the evidence of the plaintiffs had already been completed. This implies that the proof affidavit is already on record. The learned District Munsif need not reinvent the wheel and direct the plaintiffs to file a proof affidavit afresh. The proof affidavit already filed will he taken on record by him. The defendants will cross examine the plaintiffs on the proof affidavit so filed. The learned District Munsif shall take note of the fact that the President of the plaintiff Society is about 80 years old. Therefore, the suit shall continue with all expedition ensuring that the suit is heard atleast twice a week. The learned District Munsif is also requested not to grant unnecessary adjournments to either side and he shall ensure that the suit itself is disposed of on or before 30.04.2025."
After the above order had been passed, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petitions, which is nothing but an abuse of process 7/10
of Court. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. 28.01.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order srn To
1. The District Registrar, Registrar of Societies Central, Chennai-600 014
2. The General Secretary, Tami Nadu Soft Tennis Association, Kavitha Sembannan, 2/94, Geetha Nagar, Mohan Nagar Post, Salem Steel Plant, Salem - 636030 8/10
P.T.ASHA, J., srn W.P.Nos.47022 of 2025 and 1694 of 2026 9/10
28.01.2026 10/10