Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
SWATI ULHAS KERKAR AND ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
SANJAY WALAVALKAR AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 412 of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8138 of 2020)
Decided on : 10-02-2021
Criminal Proceduree Code,1973 - Section 144 - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Elections - No confidence motion - Byelaws of Society mandate that elections to Karyakari Samiti (Managing Committee) be held every three years - Elections to Managing Committee were due , however, there was a delay in conducting elections, which ultimately came to be held - While Managing Committee elected was at helm of affairs of Society, it was served with a requisition dated signed by 18 of the 32 existing members of Society, to convene a SGBM for removal of Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer and for conducting elections therefore - Removal of Managing Committee was sought on various grounds of abuse of power and mismanagement, resulting in loss of confidence - However, upon objections raised by members of Managing Committee to hold such SGBM, said decision came to be reviewed and SGBM stood cancelled - That decision was communicated to members of general body vide letter dated - Whether invalidation of membership of appellants and impleaded appellants1 (and two others), solely on the ground that then Managing Committee on its way out and facing no confidence motion before Special General Body Meeting2 demanded by majority of existing members of Society ought not to have hastened admission of new members, is just and proper and appropriate direction necessary in that regard? - Held, In Court opinion, however, Registrar as well as High Court, after so observing, ought to have clarified position parties (appellants and Society) are relegated to the situation as it obtained prior - That would have been a just and proper order - That means applications filed by appellants and similarly placed two other persons, ought to be regarded as pending for scrutiny and for being processed by newly constituted Managing Committee after conducting elections, which were due - While parting and for completion of record, Court may advert to challenge of appellants to continuation of election process and having been taken forward to constitute newly elected Managing Committee despite pendency of this appeal - In light of our above analysis, this grievance cannot be maintained at instance of these appellants as status of these appellants is merely that of applicants for grant of membership - Until they are admitted as members of Society, they would have no right whatsoever to participate in election process culminated - Appeal is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.
1. The central question in this appeal is: Whether the invalidation of membership of appellants and the impleaded appellants1[ For short, “the appellants”] (and two others), solely on the ground that the then Managing Committee on its way out and facing no confidence motion before the Special General Body Meeting2[For short, “SGBM”] demanded by the majority of existing members of the Society ought not to have hastened admission of new members, is just and proper and the appropriate direction necessary in that regard?
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Briefly stated, Prabodhan Education Society, 3[For short, “the Society”.] is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 18604[For short, “the 1860 Act”.]. The Society consisted of 32 members - before induction of 22 persons (including the appellants) as members on 17.09.2017 and their subsequent removal in terms of the impugned decision.
3. The byelaws of the Society mandate that the elections to the Karyakari Samiti (Managing Committee) be held every three years. The elections to the Managing Committee were due in September 2013, however, there was a delay in conducting elections, which ultimately came to be held on 05.10.2014. While the Managing Committee elected in 2014 was at the helm of affairs of the Society, it was served with a requisition dated 07.11.2016 signed by 18 of the 32 existing members of the Society, to convene a SGBM for removal of the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer and for conducting elections therefore. The removal of the Managing Committee was sought on various grounds of abuse of power and mismanagement, resulting in loss of confidence.
4. In furtherance of the said requisition, the Secretary vide letter dated 22.11.2016, scheduled a SGBM on 07.12.2016.
However, upon objections raised by the members of the Managing Committee to hold such SGBM, the said decision came to be reviewed and the SGBM stood cancelled. That decision was communicated to the members of the general body vide letter dated 03.12.2016.
5. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the SGBM by the Managing Committee, Sanjay Walavalkar (respondent No. 1 herein and one other member of the Society) approached the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa5[For short, “the High Court”] vide Writ Petition No. 1195 of 2016 for the following reliefs:
“(a) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent No.4 to convene a Special General Body Meeting to transact the agenda as requisitioned by the 18 requisitioning members vide their letter dated 07.11.2016 addressed to the Chairman/Secretary of the said society and to hold the same under the supervision and control of the Respondent Nos.2 and/or 3 as the observers to oversee such meeting.
(b) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and/or Respondent No.3 to direct the Respondent No.4 to convene a Special General Body Meeting to transact the agenda as requisitioned by the 18 requisitioning members vide their letter dated 07.11.2016 addressed to the Chairman/Secretary of the said society and to hold the same under the supervision and control of the Respondent Nos.2 and/or 3 as the observers to oversee such meeting.”
6. Indisputably, 22 persons (including the appellants - vide letters dated 12.09.2016, 19.09.2016, 22.09.2016, 18.10.2016, 12.12.2016 and 19.12.2016) had filed applications for being enrolled as a member of the Society. The Secretary issued notice dated 29.12.2016 proposing to convene a meeting of the Managing Committee on 02.01.2017 to induct new members. The induction was, however, deferred. The Secretary issued another notice on 16.09.2017 for convening a meeting of the Managing Committee on 17.09.2017, to consider induction of new members. In that meeting, the Managi
The Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction to review prior decisions regarding membership induction, and the failure to notify affected members violated natural justice principles.
The court ruled that the failure of a society to produce necessary records should not disadvantage members claiming valid induction, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation in membership d....
Section 4-B of Act, 1860, Registrar is not supposed to make adjudication of dispute of correctness of membership like a Court but whenever a list is submitted or there is any change in the list of me....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the General Body meeting and election process under the Societies Registration Act, 1975.
[The court established that consent terms in electoral disputes are binding and that the rejection of nominations must be based on clear and consistent grounds, emphasizing the rights of members in t....
The validity of society member induction must be adjudicated by civil courts, not administrative bodies, given the complexity and private nature of disputes surrounding it.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
