SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Chen Khoi Kui – Appellant
Versus
Liang Miao Sheng & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No……………………. of 2023 (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No._____________ @ Diary No.29700 of 2019)
Decided on : 13-09-2023
Registrar of Society - West Bengal Registration Act 1961 - Section 22 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 - The court discussed the power of the Registrar of Society to cancel the registration of a society and the distinction between procedural review and substantive review. The judgment highlighted the need for the party alleging suppression of material facts to prove it and the requirement for the Registrar to adhere to the statutory provisions and exercise procedural review.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose over the control of a school between two groups of Chinese tannery owners in Kolkata. The appellant claimed that the school was operated by the Chinese Tannery Owners' Association, while the respondents obtained a separate registration for 'Pei May Chinese High School'. The appellant filed complaints and legal proceedings, leading to the Registrar's order to cancel the school's registration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registrar's decision to cancel the school's registration did not suffer from any legal shortcoming and upheld the decision. It also emphasized the need for the party alleging suppression of material facts to prove it and for the Registrar to adhere to the statutory provisions and exercise procedural review.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Registrar of Society had the power to cancel the registration of a society obtained by suppression of material facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the party alleging suppression of material facts to prove it and for the Registrar to adhere to the statutory provisions and exercise procedural review.
Final Decision: The court upheld the Registrar's decision to cancel the school's registration and directed the matter to be remanded to the Registrar for further consideration in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The main question which arises for adjudication in this appeal is as to whether the Registrar of Society, empowered to grant registration under West Bengal Registration Act 1961, also has the power to cancel such registration. There is no specific provision in the statute granting such authority the power to review or cancel his own decision. The root of the dispute lies in what appears to be a conflict between two groups of the chinese tannery owners in Kolkata over the control of a school. The school in question, as per pleadings, came into existence in the year 1929 as ‘Pei May Chinese School’, and operated out of a small hut in an area commonly referred to as China Town. Subsequently, the Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association in Kolkata set up the school on a large tract of land in a locality known as Tangra. As per the appellant, the school was moved to this location, now carrying the street address P-1 and 2, Iswar Mondal Lane, Kolkata-700046. The tanners of Chinese origin at one point of time constituted an affluent and vibrant trade group in Kolkata in the field of processing and production of leather goods and they still have a presence in that sector. The Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association was registered as a society in the year 1967 under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The Regulation of the Association, a copy of which has been annexed at page 72 of the paperbook records that the said association had been functioning since 1944 and has a school of its own known as Pei May School. The address of the school is also specified therein. The appellant claims to be the secretary of the school, which according to him was operated by the Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association.
4. Dispute arose when the Registrar, under the aforesaid Statute, granted certificate of Registration in the name of ‘Pei May Chinese High School’ as an independent society on 19.02.2010 in response to an application made by the respondents herein. The address of this society has been shown to be P-1-2, Iswar Mondal Lane over which the Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association claim title. The appellant contends that the said association has no connection whatsoever with Pei May Chinese High School. This dispute was initially raised with the Registrar by filing a complaint. The appellant, on 17.08.2010, had submitted to the Registrar copies of letters by seven individuals who had been shown as office bearers/members of the “Pei May Chinese High School” society. Their letters were broadly to the effect that they were never appointed in such capacity, as was shown in the memorandum of association of the “school society”. The said letters carried the request for cancelling the registration of Pei May Chinese High School as a society. There were allegations of forgery and fabrication of signatures in this set of complaints.
5. It appears such disputes were taken to the civil court and criminal proceeding was also instituted. A writ petition was also filed by the appellant in which cancellation of the said registration was asked for. The civil suit was instituted by the Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association in the year 2016 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sealdah, registered as T.S. No.142/2016. This was a suit for declaration and injunction and the substantive relief of the plaintiff therein was to restrain the respondents from interfering with the administration of Pei May Chinese High School. It appears that in an interlocutory proceeding taken out in connection with that suit, ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the appellant.
6. From the year 2011, there have been several rounds of litigations by and between the rival parties. The order of the Registrar, from which the present proceeding originates was passed in pursuance of an earlier Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in APOT No. 498 of 2015 delivered on 14.01.2016. This judgment records:-
“T
AI
The Registrar of Societies lacks the authority to cancel registrations of societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 without appropriate statutory provisions.
The Deputy Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in cancelling the firm registration, lacking authority to review under the Indian Partnership Act, rendering the action void.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a document is registered, it cannot be cancelled by the Sub-Registrar unilaterally, and the appropriate remedy for disputes on facts and ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the powers of the District Registrar and the need for adjudication of civil disputes by the Competent Civil Court of Law.
The court established that the Registrar does not have the authority to transfer cases between Deputy Registrars under the Societies Registration Act, and that prior findings against a party must be ....
The cancellation of a society's registration under the Societies Act 1966 is valid if it adheres to the statutory requirements and does not infringe upon fundamental rights.
The court affirmed that the Assistant Registrar must assess the bona fides of disputes before deciding on their referral to the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act.
The main legal point established is that the power to cancel registered documents under Section 77A of the Registration Act is limited to cases of fraud or impersonation within specific provisions of....
The Registrar's authority under S.80-A includes revising decisions without the constraint of pending proceedings, mandating adherence to procedural fairness.
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.