Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Interim Order Restraining O Panneerselvam From Using AIADMK Party Name, Flag, Symbol

Upasana Sajeev

11 Jan 2024 7:20 AM GMT

  • Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Interim Order Restraining O Panneerselvam From Using AIADMK Party Name, Flag, Symbol

    A Division bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an interim order of a single judge restraining former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and expelled AIADMK leader O Paneerselvam from using the party's name, flag, symbol, and letterhead. The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the...

    A Division bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an interim order of a single judge restraining former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and expelled AIADMK leader O Paneerselvam from using the party's name, flag, symbol, and letterhead.

    The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the single judge and dismissed Panneerselvam's appeal. The court said that Paneerselvam could approach the single judge to vacate the interim injunction order.

    In November last year, Justice N Satish Kumar allowed the plea for interim injunction filed by the party General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswami. Edappadi had approached the court contending that even after expulsion from the party, OPS continued to claim himself to be the coordinator of the party.

    EPS informed the court that the High Court had already upheld OPS's expulsion from the party and even the Election Commission had recognized EPS to be the General Secretary of the party. Thus, EPS claimed that OPS was confusing the cadres by portraying himself to be the party coordinator and using the party name, symbol, flag, etc.

    In his appeal, Panneerselvam contended that he could not be restricted from using the party flag, symbol, and letterhead as a suit challenging his expulsion from the party was already pending. He added that the courts had only rejected their interim applications seeking to stay on the operation of the party resolution dated July 11 2022 by which they were expelled and not on the actual expulsion.

    Counsel for Appellant: Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian Senior Advocate, Mr. Abdul Saleem, Senior Advocate for Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi

    Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Vijay Narayan, Senior Advocate for Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar & Mr. E. Balamurugan

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 15

    Case Title: O Panneerselvam v Edappadi K Palaniswami

    Case No: OSA 220 of 2023


    Next Story