TAI/VHS vs SFDRT: The final verdict of the judgment of the case.

[Guest guest]

[Moderators note: Please review the back ground of this case and related

discussion on this FORUM during 2005 at the following url

/message/4874

Dear Forum members,

Greetings from SFDRT! I would like to take you back to 2005 towards

the issue between TAI/VHS and SFDRT. With a heavy heart and amidst a

grave turmoil, we were taken to the court by VHS/TAI much to our shock and

dismay demanding the following injunction. There were two reasons for me to cite

the following, without any ill feeling towards VHS/TAI:

TAI/VHS had sent photographs and written statements of SFDRT having

to stage dharna and ghareoing their project director and their

administrative office with the intention of getting back the

cancelled grant. These were sent to many donors and NGOs, depriving

of our name and status in the field of HIV/AIDS work.

Subsquently many enquiries have been asked as to the final verdict of

the judgment of the case filed by VHS against me and SFDRT.

The case was attended and contested by SFDRT and the final verdict

has been received as follows: (Abstract)

Plaintiff: Voluntary Health Services, Madras

Defendants: 1. Ms. Shyamala Ashok – Madras

2. Society For Development Research and Training (SFDRT) rep by

its Executive director

Judgment: Suit for granting permanent (perpetual) injunction

restraining the defendants, their men, agents, attorneys, assigns,

successors or any one claiming through them or in trust of them or

under them from interfering with peaceful possessions, functioning,

working of its administrative and other staffs and carrying of its

business including TAI project program for STD/HIV/AIDS Prevention

and Control among sex workers in Tamilnadu, in any manner including

entering, holding dharna, staging ghareo, demonstration in relation

to cancellation of grant to defendants or for any other purpose or

reason, in suit premises of the plaintiff and for costs.

22). But in this case the plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged

occurrence on 11.7.2005, 3.8.2005 by sufficient evidence and

documents. So I hold that the said citation is not applicable to the

case in hand. More over the plaintiff is having right to give

criminal complaint for the said alleged acts. The learned counsel for

the plaintiff has argued that DW1 (Defendants) has no right to

contest this case and to file written statement on behalf of the 2nd

defendant and ExB1, ExB2 have been filed subsequent to the cross

examination of DW1. It is true that ExB1, ExB2 are filed subsequent

to the cross examination of DW1. ExB1 is the authorization letter

given in favor of the first defendant. ExB2 is the copy of the

resolution of the 2nd defendant society. The plaintiff has filed the

suit for permanent injunction against the defendant from interfering

with the peaceful functioning of the administrative office of the TAI

project. So the plaintiff is bound to prove its case by independent

evidence and documents. The technical defects on the side of the

defendants will in no way improve the case of the plaintiff. So the

argument of the counsel for the plaintiff will in no way help the

case of the plaintiff. In view of the above said reasons, I hold that

the plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for,

issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No: 2

In view of the decisions arrived in issue no.1. the suit is

dismissed. No Costs. In the results, suit is dismissed. NO costs.

Dictated to steno typist, transcribed and computerized by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd say

of February 2007.

XVI Assistant Judge

In the City Civil Court at Chennai – Thursday the 22nd day of

February 2007

Copied by

Shyamala Ashok

Executive Director – SFDRT

e-mail: <aabinand@...>