Bombay High Court
CINE AND TELEVISION ARTISTES ASSOCIATION CINTAA THR ITS VICE PRESIDENT CHANDRAPRAKASH B THAKURversusFEDERATION OF WESTERN INDIA CLINE EMPLOYEES FWICE THR ITS PRESIDENT MR B.N.TIWARI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Courts should not ordinarily interdict an election once it is set in motion, and the results must not be acted upon until the pending notice of motion is decided.
Summary
The Cine and Television Artistes Association (CINTAA) appealed against an order of the City Civil Court that rejected its request for ad‑interim relief concerning elections that were being conducted by the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE). CINTAA argued that the elections should be conducted by it under its own Constitution and that FWICE’s Clause 26(d) did not empower it to hold the elections, rendering the process void. FWICE contended that the executive committee of CINTAA was dissolved and that, under its own constitutional clause, it had authority to conduct fresh elections for the affiliate. The High Court observed that the trial court’s order was made at the interlocutory stage without a full appreciation of evidence and that, as a general principle, courts should not interfere with an election once it has been set in motion. Accordingly, the Court allowed the elections to proceed but directed that the results not be acted upon until the pending notice of motion is heard on 26 October 2026. All contentions were kept open and the appeal was disposed without granting the interim relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether FWICE, under Clause 26(d) of its Constitution, had the authority to conduct elections for CINTAA.
- Whether CINTAA’s Constitution conferred exclusive authority to conduct its own elections, rendering FWICE’s actions ultra vires.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the ad‑interim relief sought by CINTAA.
- Whether a court may intervene in an election process that has already been set in motion.
Subjects
- trade union
- election
- interim relief
- constitutional provisions
- jurisdiction
- injunction
- pending motion
Judgment
502-AO-932-26 WITH IA.DOC
JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJESH
MANE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
RAJESH MANE
Date: 2026.09.11
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 932 OF 2026
19:37:23 +0530
Cine And Television Artistes Association Cintaa
Thr Its Vice President Chandraprakash B Thakur ...Appellants
Versus
Federation Of Western India Cline Employees
(FWICE) Thr Its President Mr B.N.tiwari ...Respondent(s)
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 27080 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 932 OF 2026
_______
Mr.A.S.Peerzada a/w. Mr. Rakesh Sawant a/w. Shamiyana H a/w. Ms. Ashish Shukla
i/b. Arhat Legal, for Appellants.
Mr. Ashok D. Shetty a/w. Mr. K.R.Shety and Bushra Moghul, for Respondents.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE: 11 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties for some time.
2. This Appeal from Order has been filed taking exception to the order
dated 8th September 2026 passed by the learned City Civil Court, at Dindoshi,
Borivali Division, Goregaon, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”)
on the Notice of Motion in S.C. Suit No. 1839 of 2026, whereby the learned Trial
Court has rejected the ad-interim reliefs as prayed for by the Appellants.
Page 1 of 4
Mane
502-AO-932-26 WITH IA.DOC
3. It is the Appellants’ case that the elections which were to be conducted by
the Appellants have, instead, been conducted by the Respondents, contrary to the
Constitution of the Appellants. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court
has failed to appreciate that the Appellants and the Respondents are two distinct
trade unions, each of which is governed by its respective registered Constitution.
4. It is further the contention of the Appellants that Clause 26(d) of the
Respondents’ Constitution does not confer any authority upon the Respondents to
conduct the elections in question. Consequently, the entire election process
conducted by the Respondents is contrary to their Constitution and is, therefore,
vitiated.
5. It is further the contention of the Appellants that the learned Trial
Court has failed to deal with Clause 29(b) of the Appellants’ Constitution as well as
Clause 18(f)(iii) thereof. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the ad-
interim reliefs essentially on the ground that the issues raised give rise to triable
issues which can be adjudicated upon at the stage of evidence and that, since the
election process has already been set in motion, no ad-interim relief ought to be
granted. It is submitted that the aforesaid approach of the learned Trial Court has
caused grave prejudice and irreparable harm to the Appellants.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has
vehemently opposed the reliefs sought in the present Appeal from Order. It is
submitted that the Executive Committee of the Appellants itself stands dissolved,
inasmuch as certain members of the Executive Committee have resigned and have
thereafter approached the Respondents for conducting the elections.
Page 2 of 4
Mane
502-AO-932-26 WITH IA.DOC
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed reliance upon Clause
26(d) of the Respondents’ Constitution to contend that the Respondents have
complete authority to dissolve the committee of their affiliate association where
such committee continues to represent the association without conducting fresh
elections even after expiry of its elected term. It is further submitted that, in such
circumstances, the elections are required to be conducted under the surveillance of
the Scrutiny Committee upon giving 15 days’ notice.
8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has further submitted that the
election process has already been set in motion and, in fact, the election schedule
annexed at page 67 of the Appeal from Order indicates that the elections are
scheduled to be held tomorrow.
9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties for some time. Upon giving due
consideration to the rival contentions advanced before the Court, it is clear that the
impugned order has been passed at the ad-interim stage and that the learned Trial
Court has not yet recorded any final findings upon appreciation of the evidence or
upon a detailed consideration of the documents forming part of the record.
10. In the circumstances, without opining anything on merits or giving any
prima facie imprimatur of this Court, it would be appropriate that the learned Trial
Court considers and appreciates the evidence and documents on record while
hearing and deciding the Notice of Motion, which is presently kept for hearing on
26th October 2026. At the hearing of the aforesaid Notice of Motion, all
contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
Page 3 of 4
Mane
502-AO-932-26 WITH IA.DOC
11. It is further a settled principle of law that once the election process has
been set in motion, the Courts ought not to ordinarily interdict or interfere with
such process. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
election process at this stage. The elections may, therefore, proceed and be
conducted tomorrow in accordance with the schedule.
12. However, it is clarified that, considering that the Notice of Motion is
pending adjudication and is kept for hearing on 26th October 2026, the
Respondents shall not act upon or give effect to the results of the elections until the
next hearing of the Notice of Motion, i.e. 26th October 2026.
13. The learned Trial Court shall endeavour to hear and decide the Notice of
Motion on 26th October 2026. The parties shall not seek any adjournment on the
said date. It is clarified that the aforesaid direction at paragraph 12 shall operate
only until 26th October 2026.
14. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
15. The Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
16. Interim Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Mane
Checking your session…