Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Adv Babasaheb Wasade and Others – Appellants
Versus
Manohar Gangadhar Muddeshwar and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10846 of 2018
Decided On : 23-01-2024
(A) Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Section 15 – Loss of membership of society – Under bye-laws of Society, there was no provision that a member defaulting in payment of membership fee and duly covered by proviso to Section 15 of Registration Act, would automatically lose his membership or in effect would cease to be a member of Society – Executive Body or any other body competent under bye-laws could take up their matter and give them a show cause notice and opportunity to save their membership by fulfilling their obligations failing which their membership would be terminated – When despite the same, they would not fulfil their obligations their membership would be declared to have been terminated. (Paras 23 and 24)
(B) Doctrine of Necessity – There is a doctrine of necessity where under given circumstances an action is required to be taken under compelling circumstances – Doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield – It is often invoked in cases of bias where there is no other authority or Judge to decide the issue. (Paras 15 and 17)
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The present appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 20.07.2017, passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 811 of 2016, whereby the Appeal was dismissed, thereby confirming the order passed by the District Judge-IV, Chandrapur which confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur rejecting the change report filed by the appellants.
2. There is a society by the name of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mul1 [in short “Society”] registered under the Societies Registration Act, 18602 [in short Registration Act”] as a charitable society since 1946. The Society in its turn framed its rules and regulations. Later on, the Society was registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.3 [in short “Trusts Act”] The rules and regulations of the Society were incorporated as its bye-laws and were duly registered under the Trusts Act.
3. As per the rules and regulations, the Society has four types of members i.e. Life members, Employee members, Ordinary members and Donor members. The members of each category were required to pay an annual membership subscription of Rs. 11/- per year to the Society.
4. The effective office bearers of the Society namely the President, Vice-President and the Secretary of the Society expired. Even prior to the death of the President due to his poor health, the Executive Body under his presidentship passed a resolution on 01.07.1997 empowering Advocate Babasaheb Wasade (appellant No. 1) to be designated as the Working President and he was required to look after day-to-day affairs and management of the Society. This status of Working President was given to the appellant No. 1 at a time when the President was suffering from serious illness and later on succumbed due to ill health on 24.05.1998.
5. As there was no elected President, Vice-President or the Secretary, 16 members of the Society requested appellant No. 1 vide written request dated 20.08.2002 to summon extraordinary meeting to hold the elections. Pursuant to the receipt of the said request, the appellant No. 1 acting as Working President, issued notice on 03.09.2002 for summoning a special meeting for the elections of new Executive Body. The elections were held on 08.09.2002 and a new Executive Committee was elected with appellant No. 1 as the President and appellant No. 2 as the Secretary. Accordingly, a Change Report bearing no. 668 of 2002 was submitted under Section 22 of the Trusts Act before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur.
6. Objections were filed by 7 persons alleging to be members of the Society on the ground that notice dated 03.09.2002 had not been served on them and that appellant No. 1 had no authority to issue notice to summon a meeting for election. It was also alleged in the objections that the signatory nos. 12 to 16 to the request letter dated 20.08.2002, were not valid members of the Society and were yet to be approved by the Executive Committee. Further signatory nos. 4 to 7 of the same objection had retired and hence, they ceased to be members.
7. The elected Secretary filed his response to the said objections stating therein that signatory nos. 4 to 7 and 12 to 16 are valid members of the Society. Further that the 7 Objectors had not paid their annual subscriptions for more than the prescribed period under Section 15 of the Registration Act as such they were barred from voting, and therefore, even if notices were not sent to them, it would not make any difference.
8. Before the Assistant Charity Commissioner parties led evidence. The Assistant Charity Commissioner vide order dated 19.06.2010 allowed the objections and accordingly rejected the Change Report. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur. The appeal was allowed by order dated 12.04.2016 and the Change Report was accepted. Against this, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 50 of 2016 was filed by the Objectors bef
Doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield.
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....
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 the Charity Commissioner has the authority to examine the legality of membership and the validity of meetings under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and that change....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that By-law 44 of the third respondent society, which barred members from casting their vote through proxy, was declared illegal and void, and a Ju....
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 Election Officer exceeded jurisdiction by excluding members enrolled after 16 May 1999 from the voters list; their membership validity must be determined in future proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the statutory provisions for convening the Annual General Body Meeting (AGBM) of cooperative societies, as mandated by the ....
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
