Home | News & Events | News | As Per The Order Of Civil Court GR.Mumbai Suspension Of Dr. Umasankar Mohanty Is Correct & CEC Decision Is Upheld By The Hon. Court.

As Per The Order Of Civil Court GR.Mumbai Suspension Of Dr. Umasankar Mohanty Is Correct & CEC Decision Is Upheld By The Hon. Court.

By

Rate this article

0
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

LET THE JUSTICE PREVAIL.

AS PER THE ORDER OF CIVIL COURT GR.MUMBAI SUSPENSION OF DR.UMASANKAR MOHANTY IS CORRECT AND CEC DECISION IS UPHELD BY THE HON.COURT. THE DISHONESTY AND ILLEGALITY DONE BY DR.MOHANTY IS MORE CLEAR NOW.

THE MAIN POINTS FROM ORDER AS FOLLOWS.

The defendant contended that the Association came to be registered with the office of the Charity Commissioner at Mumbai in 1955 and plaintiff conceived and adopted the trade mark of The Indian Association of Physiotherapist(with device) and has been continuously using since 01/01/2008. Thus due to above act of the plaintiff, he was suspended.


8. Prima facie from the document filed by the defendant, it appears that name of the defendant was registered under Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the same has been known as ‘The Indian Association of Physiotherapists-IAP’ and certificate was issued on 03/08/2017. The contention of the plaintiff is that plaintiff prepared the application in March-2020 but due to COVID-19 his application was not processed and same was filed in May-2020. On perusal of the document, it appears that IAP was already registered and therefore there was no occasion for the plaintiff to again register the same. The plaintiff, from the plaint avernments continued as a President of (National Affair ) of IAP till March, 2020, then for what reason the plaintiff has signed the
affidavit on 04/05/2020 and under what capacity is not coming forward. The person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. The explanation of the plaintiff is that the procedure for trade mark registration was started on 14/03/2020 and due to Covid-19, affidavit could not be signed. The said explanation is not plausible. At that time, the plaintiff was not authorised by the defendant to process the application for registration of Trade Mark. Even when in the year 2017, defendant was registered under Trade Mark Act, then again there was no need for registration. Prima facie this conduct of the plaintiff cannot be ignored for grant of equitable relief. Be that as it may, whether the act of the plaintiff is detrimental to the interest of the defendant, inquiry to that effect is initiated and therefore finding in that regard would not be proper. Article-6 of the Memorandum of Association and the rules and regulations of the defendant contemplated disciplanary action. The same is reproduced as under:-

“Disciplinary action-The Central executive committee of IAP shall be competent to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against a District branch/member for a violation of the rules & regulations of the associations or for any unethical, defamatory, malicious, fraudulent behaviour or may gross professional misconduct on the part of the member of the assocation. The punishment therefore may be suspension for a fixed period or expulsion by the approval of CEC.”

The power as to punish the member for violation of the rules and regulations or any unethical, fraudulent and misconduct on the part of the mebers leads to suspension. The action of the defendant is supported by article-6 which does not contemplate that before the suspension the plaintiff is required to be heard. The contention of the defendant is that inquiry has been initiated and show cause notice has been issued to the plaintiff and therefore it cannot be said that the act of the defendant is against the principle of natural justice. The defendant found that act of the plaintiff is ex facie gross misconduct.The suspension notice shows that the meeting was held on 20/11/2020 and plaintiff was immediately suspended for 10 years. The action was within the framework of Memorandum of Association.
Therefore, when the inquiry has been initiated and the plaintiff has received communication in that regard, it would not be proper to stay the suspension of the plaintiff. There is no material to show that any defamatory article was published against the plaintiff by the defendant.

9 The publication of the suspension order on the website cannot said to be defamatory article and it is for the knowledge of members of association. Therefore, there is nothing to show that the defendant has defamed the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has not made out prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The inquiry for the act and ommission of the plaintiff initiated and is in progress, therefore the needle of balance of convenience does not tilt in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has opportunity to address his issue before the inquiry officer and in that eventuality no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if the interim relief is not granted. Hence, I answer point nos.1 to 3 in the negative.
Point No.4
9. In view of the above discussion, the notice of motion needs no consideration. Hence, it is expedient to pass following order:-

ORDER
1. N/M No.111/21 stands rejected.
2. Costs in the cause.
01/02/2021
M.SALMAN AZMI CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR.MUMBAI