Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H. P. SANDESH, J.
Dr. Renukaprasad K.V. S/o. K.M. Venkataramana Gowda and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Sri M. Puttaswamy, S/o. Late Motaiah and Ors. - Respondents
M.F.A. No.4319 Of 2023 (CPC) C/W. M.F.A. No.4320 Of 2023 (CPC), M.F.A. No.4445 Of 2023 (CPC)
Decided On : 07-07-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 43, Rule 1® – Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 – Mysore Societies Act, 1904 –Societies Registration Act, 1960 – Section 25 – Societies Registration Act, 1860 –Appeals – Interest of justice and equity – Order of temporary injunction restraining – Suit for relief of declaration to declare that alleged resolution - Whether notice is mandatory before passing the no confidence motion to all the executive members of Sangha as per the bye-law 7(3)(D) as contended in all the appeals –Whether the Trial Court has committed any error in not granting the relief as sought in I.A. filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. - That it is the duty of the Court to take such action as is necessary in the interest of justice which includes disposing of infructuous litigation. [Para 80]
Finding of the court: It is clear that Sangha is involved in series of litigations and no elections are conducted periodically and also material discloses that administrator was also appointed earlier as pleaded in plaint – Subsequently, only on direction of this Court in two writ petitions, election was conducted and Executive Committee members were fighting for power and not to achieve object for which Sangha was founded – It is nothing but fighting for self-enrichment and not to achieve very object of Sangha and hence it is high time for Executive Committee of Sangha to make self-introspection for what purpose Sangha was founded more than a century ago and object has to be achieved and then only they can salute founders of Sangha which was founded more than a century ago, otherwise there is no meaning in establishment.
Result: Appeals allowed
JUDGMENT :
These appeals are filed under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the VI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-11) at Bengaluru City, on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.3590/2023. Consequently, allow the application and grant the relief as sought therein and pass such other order or directions as this Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow the Miscellaneous First Appeals.
2. The appellants in MFA No.4320/2023 are the plaintiffs have filed a suit for the relief of declaration to declare that the alleged resolution dated 09.06.2023 referred to in a paper publication dated 10.06.2023 published in Vijayavani Kannada Daily Newspaper and notice dated 09.06.2023 issued by the defendant as illegal, null and void and non-est and issue a consequential direction that the same shall not be given effect to or implemented; declare that the alleged Meeting dated 09.06.2023 referred to in the Paper Publication dated 10.06.2023 in Vijayavani Kannada Daily News Paper as well as notice dated 09.06.2023 as illegal, null and void and consequently, restrain defendant from acting upon, giving effect to or implementing any decisions taken thereat; declare that the defendant has acted illegally and without authority of law in calling a meeting of the executive committee of the Plaintiff Sangha on 17.06.2023; restrain the defendant, his servants or agents or anyone claiming through or under him from interfering with the right of the Plaintiff No.3 in discharging his duty as General Secretary of Plaintiff No.1-Sangha; grant costs of these proceedings and pass such other order as this Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity. Inter alia sought for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from giving effect to and implementing the alleged resolution dated 09.06.2023 referred to in a paper publication dated 10.06.2023 published in Vijayavani Kannada Daily Newspaper as well as notice dated 09.06.2023 issued by the defendant, pending disposal of the suit in the interest of justice and equity. Being aggrieved by the rejection of I.A.No.1, the present appeal is filed.
3. The appellants in MFA No.4319/2023 are not the plaintiffs and also not parties to the suit, but they claims that the first appellant is a Vice-President and the second appellant is a Treasurer of Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha (‘the Sangha’ for short) and while filing the application, a leave is sought on the ground that they are the Vice-Presidents and Treasurer and their right is prejudiced in passing such resolution. Hence, this Court granted leave to file the appeal and they also sought a similar order to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.1 and consequently allowed the same.
4. The appellants in MFA No.4445/2023 are also not the parties to the original suit and they claims that they are the Directors of the Sangha. In view of the resolution dated 09.06.2023 and their rights is prejudiced and they also sought to grant leave to file the present appeal.
5. This Court having considered the grounds urged in the application granted leave to file an appeal vide order dated 04.07.2023 and they also sought for a similar order to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.1 and consequently allowed the appeals.
6. The appellants in MFA No.4320/2023 also filed an application to implead some of the directors of the Sangha to implead them that they are the necessary parties to this appeal and this Court ordered to serve the notice on the proposed respondents and only the proposed respondent, who claims that who has been elected as President of the Sangha, represented through the Counsel and other proposed respondents though have been served they did not choose to engage a Counsel or appeared in person. Hence, this Court held service of notice against them is sufficient and allowed the impleading applic
Point of law: That it is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding.
Section 25 of Act which reads as enquiry by Registrar, etc.
Compliance with Order-1 Rule-8 CPC was not necessary as the societies were capable of suing or being sued without taking recourse to the rule. The judgment in the earlier suit was binding on each and....
A no-confidence motion against a municipal Vice-Chairperson is valid without the necessity of specific reasons in the resolution, and adherence to statutory notice requirements fulfills procedural ju....
Doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield.
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
