SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd October, 1961.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi, Petitioner
Versus
State of Delhi (Now Delhi Administration) and another, Respondents.
Petition No. 96 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Purushottam Trikamdas, Senior Advocate (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, Ravindra Narain and Onkar Chand Mathur, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Petitioner; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar and T. M. Sen, Advocates with him), for Respondents.
The provided legal document does not explicitly contain a paragraph that states or discusses that the registrar is different from the charity commissioner. The document mainly focuses on the legal status of the society, the legislative competence, and the constitutional validity of the legislation affecting the society, but it does not specify or differentiate the roles of the registrar and the charity commissioner.
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J. (For himself and B. P. Sinha, C.J.I. and A. K. Sarkar and Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.) : This is a writ petition on behalf of two petitioners. The first petitioner is the Board of Trustees. Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College Delhi, through Hakim Mohammad Jamil Khan, stated to be its properly elected Secretary. The second petitioner is Hakim Mohammad Jamil Khan himself, who states that he is still one of the trustees or members of the said Board. The petition was initially filed on, behalf of the first petitioner. Subsequently, an amendment petition was moved which was allowed by us. As a result of the amendments allowed petitioner No. 2 was added as one of the petitioners, and certain new grounds of attack were added in para. 14 of the petition. To these grounds we shall advert later.
2. The short facts giving rise to the petition are these. One Hakim Muhammad Ajmal Khan was a physician (of Unani medicine) of all-India repute. He lived in Delhi and started a pharmaceutical institute in the town known as Hindustani Dawakhana in the year 1903. He also established a medical college known as the Tibbia College. He died in the year 1927. But before his death, in the year 1911, he along with certain other persons formed a society styled Anjuman-i- Tibbia and had it registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act XXI of 1860). The name of the society was changed in 1915, and it became known as the Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College, Delhi. For convenience we shall refer to it as the Board. The Board ran the Tibbia College and an attached hostel. The pharmaceutical institute was also managed by it, though at one stage petitioner No. 2 claimed the institute as his private property. Certain rules and regulations were made for the functioning of the Board, which were amended from time to time. The main objects of the Board were thus stated in the rules :-
(a) to establish colleges for the purpose of imparting higher education in the Unani and Ayurvedic systems of medicine to the inhabitants of India;
(b) to improve the indigenous systems of medicine on scientific lines and for that purpose to establish one or more pharmaceutical institutes (dawakhanas); and
(c) to have medical books compiled and translated and to adopt other means which might enhance the popularity of those systems and add to the information of the people in general on hygiene etc.
The maximum number of members (called trustees in the rules) was 35 to be elected from all the then Provinces of India. It was stated in R. 5 that one-third of the members of the Board should be Hakims and Vaids. Tile financial year of the Board was to be from April 1 to March 31 of each year, and the subscription to be paid by a member of the Board was fixed at Rs. 12 per annum payable in advance before April 30 of each year. Rule 6 laid down the circumstances in which the office of a member should be deemed to be vacant and one of such circumstances was the failure of a member to pay his annual subscription before the date fixed for such payment. There were also rules regarding (a) powers of inspection of the college, hostel etc., (b) ordinary meetings of the Board of Trustees, and (c) matters which could be dealt with by the Board and its sub-committees. It is not necessary to state these rules in detail. Rule 13 provided for the formation of a Managing Committee consisting of nine members and six officials for a period of three years and the functions of the Managing Committee were also prescribed in the rules. The office-bearers of the Board and the Managing Committee were to be the same and consisted of (i) a President, (ii) a Senior Vice-President, (iii) a Junior Vice-President, (iv) a Secretary, (v) a Financial Secretary, and (vi) a Joint Secretary. It was laid down in R. 26 that the office-bearers of the Board were to be elected for three years by the members. The rules also laid down the powers and duties of the President. Secretary, Financ
REFERRED TO : Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India
Distinguished : Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. and others
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose and others
Relied on : K.C.Gajapati Narayan Deo and others v. State of orissa
REFERRED TO : Gajapathi Narayan Deo v. State of orissa
State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose
Satvavart Sidhantalankar v. Arya Samaj, Bombay
Servants of India Society, Poona v. Charity Commissioner of Bombay
Taff Vale Ry. Co. v. Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.