Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
R.M. JOSHI, J.
Sachin S/o Madhukarrao Mulay – Appellant
Versus
Satish S/o Bhanudas Chavan – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 1052, 1053, 1054, 1210, 1394 of 2017
Decided On : 07-02-2024
Secretary - Trust Meeting - [Societies Registration Act, 1860, Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, General Clauses Act] - The court discussed the powers of the secretary of the Trust to cancel a meeting and the authority of the Vice President to convene a General Body Meeting. It highlighted the relevant provisions of the Memorandum of Association of the Trust and concluded that the secretary lacked the independent power to call a General Body Meeting and therefore had no authority to cancel the meeting. The court also found no evidence that the Vice President had convened the meeting, dismissing the challenge to the General Body Meeting and election.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals challenged the judgment confirming the rejection of a change report filed by a member of a public trust regarding the cancellation of a General Body Meeting and the subsequent election of office bearers and members of the Executive Council.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the secretary lacked the independent power to call a General Body Meeting and therefore had no authority to cancel the meeting. It also found no evidence that the Vice President had convened the meeting, dismissing the challenge to the General Body Meeting and election.
Issues: The issues involved whether the secretary of the Trust had the power to cancel the meeting and whether the meeting was convened by the Vice President.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the secretary lacked the independent power to call a General Body Meeting and therefore had no authority to cancel the meeting. It also found no evidence that the Vice President had convened the meeting, dismissing the challenge to the General Body Meeting and election.
Final Decision: All the appeals were dismissed as they lacked merit.
JUDGMENT :
R.M. JOSHI, J.
1. These appeals take exception to common judgment and order dated 14th December, 2016, passed in MARJI No. 47/2016, 50/2016 and 53/2016 whereby the order dated 21st January, 2016 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai in Appeals No. 75/2015, 76/2015 and 81/2015 was confirmed. These appeals were filed challenging judgment and order dated 16th June, 2015 passed by Deputy Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad in Enquiry Petition No. J-1/247/2013 whereby change report dated 12th July, 2013 filed by Satish Bhanudas Chavan was rejected.
2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, they are decided together.
3. Parties are referred to by their nominclature in First Appeal No. 1394/2017 for the sake of convenience.
4. Admit. Heard finally by consent of both sides.
5. Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad is a public trust registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The last election of the Executive Council of the said Trust was held for the term of 2008-2013 which was to expire on 9th July, 2013. Appellants were elected in the said election. There are total 179 members in the General Body of the said Trust. On 18th June, 2013, the Executive Council of the Trust in its meeting decided to hold General Body Meeting on 10th July, 2013 for election of office bearers and members of Executive Council of the said Trust. In the said meeting, advocates were appointed as Election Officer and Joint Election Officer in accordance with Section 9 of the relevant bye-laws. Some petitions were filed against their appointment. Hence, both of them decided not to act as Election Officer and Joint Election Officer and communicated their inability. As the Election Officer refused to conduct election, appellant No. 4 called a emergent meeting of Executive Council and as the members in the meeting were less than 7, the President i.e. respondent No. 17 suspended the meeting for half an hour and then conducted emergent meeting of Executive Council. Notice of cancellation of General Body Meeting on 10th July, 2013 was given to the members of the said Trust by respondent No. 20 through SMS and also by publication in the newspaper on 10th July, 2013. It is the case of appellants that contesting respondents inspite of having knowledge about cancellation of General Body Meeting, created a show of holding election and illegally declared themselves as elected unanimously. Pursuant to the alleged election, change report dated 12th July, 2013 was filed by respondent No. 1 being Enquiry Petition J-1/247/2013 before the Deputy Charity Commissioner under Section 22 read with Section 17 of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
6. By order dated 16th June, 2015, the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, after conducting enquiry under Section 22 of the said Act, recorded findings in favour of appellants and rejected change report. Contesting respondents, being aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 16th June, 2015, preferred appeal bearing Appeal No. 75/2015, 76/2015 and 81/2015 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the said appeals were heard by the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. The Charity Commissioner allowed the appeals and accepted change report by passing judgment and order dated 21st January, 2016. The said order was assailed by filing applications bearing MARJI No. 47/2016, 50/2016 and 53/2016 under Section 72(2) of the said Act. The said applications came to be rejected by judgment and order dated 14th December, 2016. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Judge as well as Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, these appeals are preferred.
7. Learned counsels for appellants made oral as well as written submissions. In substance, it is their contention that the Charity Commissioner as well as the District Judge have failed to take into consideration the fact that the secretary of
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 binding nature of resolutions passed in meetings held under specific rules prevails over general quorum requirements, as per the principle of Generalia Specialibus non-derogant.
The authority to manage society operations must adhere to established bye-laws, and elections not conducted following prescribed procedures are void.
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 ....
The exercise of jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, by the Charity Commissioner is subject to specific conditions precedent, including the absence of a validly c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the directions issued by the Joint Charity Commissioner to enroll new members were without jurisdiction and in violation of Article 19(1)(c) o....
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
