Back
Bombay High Court
PURANIK
Dinanath Ajabrao Ingole - Appellant
Versus
Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wardha - Respondent
Decided On : 02/03/1983
BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - BAR - SECTION 80 - CHANGE REPORT - FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE DECISION - CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION OUSTED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, claiming to be the duly elected President and Secretary of a registered public trust society, filed a suit seeking a declaration of their election and an injunction restraining the defendants, the former President and Vice-President, from interfering with the trust's administration. Both parties had filed change reports with the Deputy Charity Commissioner, and the reports were pending decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the questions to be determined (validity of the plaintiffs' election and the defendants' removal) are to be decided by the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Charity Commissioner's decision on these matters is final and conclusive under Section 22(3) of the Act, and Section 80 bars the Civil Court's jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit involving questions to be determined by the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 2. Whether the Charity Commissioner's decision on change reports under Section 22(3) of the Act is final and conclusive, barring the Civil Court's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act if the questions to be decided in the suit are to be determined by an officer or authority under the Act and the decision of such officer or authority is made final and conclusive by the Act. 2. The Charity Commissioner's decision on change reports under Section 22(3) of the Act is final and conclusive, subject to appeal to the competent authority. Therefore, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is ousted in matters involving such change reports.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order of the Trial Court is quashed and set aside, and the Civil Suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2. The background of the facts resulting in the filing of the said suit are also necessary for appreciation of the grounds contended in this revision.
3. The plaintiff No. 1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 bearing Registration No. Maharashtra/47/76(W). The said Society is also registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, bearing registration No. F-223(W). The said Society runs 3 schools - 2 of them at Wardha and one at Bhuigaon. It was alleged that the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. present applicants No. 1 and 2 were the President and Vice-President of the plaintiff society (public trust). They further alleged that defendant No. 2 came to be disqualified and removed for non-payment of the requisite monthly subscription to the Society by an order dated 9-10-1979. The said, declaration regarding disqualification of defendant No. 2 came to be confirmed in General Body meeting dated 13-1-1980. It was also alleged that the said disqualification was informed to the Deputy Charity Commissioner vide change report, which came to be accepted on 25-9-1980. It was then alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 2 filed an application on 14-4-1980 stating that he would make the payment regularly. Thereafter, the defendant No. 2 again came to be enrolled as a member of the said society and Vice-President by a resolution of the Executive Body dated 15-4-1980. It was again alleged that on 15-12-1980 the plaintiff No. 3 received a representation signed by members of the society calling upon him to hold an urgent general body meeting in view of the unauthorised acts performed by the defendant No.1. In pursuance of the said representation, plaintiff No. 3, issued a notice of meeting dated 18-12-1980. The said meeting was held on 25-12-1980 and was attended by 16 members. It was also alleged that on 18-12-1980, the defendant No. 1 issued a letter informing the plaintiff No. 3 that the meeting dated 25-12-1980 would be illegal since it would not be in consonance with clause 11 of the Constitution of the society.
4. The plaint further alleges that in the meeting dated 25-12-1980, both the defendant applicants and 12 other members of the society were declared to be disqualified and were consequently removed as the members of the society vide resolution No. 6 of even date. The plaint also alleges that on 19-1-1981 the plaintiffs elected an Executive Committee amongst themselves, of which plaintiff No. 2 was elected as President and one Shri S.V. Wagh came to be elected as Vice-President.
5. A change report dated 22-1-1981 was accordingly submitted on 23-1-1981 to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, which came to be registered as C.R. 366/81. The plaint further alleges that a change report of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was also registered with the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, contending that the plaintiff No. 3 was removed by no confidence motion from the post of Secretary of the plaintiff No. 1 society. The plaint further states that both the change reports are pending before the Deputy Charity Commissioner for decision. The plaint lastly alleges t
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
