IA No.21658/2015 (O. 39 R. 1&2 CPC)

1. Vide the present suit, the plaintiff has sought the quashing of the letter/notice dated 17.09.2015 bearing No. DPSS: 2015-16:1489 issued by the defendants exercising powers under/Rule II(7) of Memorandum of Association (MoA) of defendant no.1, on the grounds of it being illegal, null and void and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with his life membership with defendant No.1 and has also claimed damages. The plaintiff has also challenged Rule II(7) of MoA of defendant no. 1/Society as invalid and non est in view of the judgment of this Court in Sarabjit Singh and Ors. vs. All India Fine Arts and Crafts Society and Ors. (1989) ILR 2 Delhi 585;

2. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CPC) seeking interim injunction against his expulsion from the membership of defendant no. 1/ Society pursuant to notice dated 17.09.2015.

3. Defendant No.1 is the registered non-profit Society and defendant No.2 is the Chairman of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has set up several schools of its own and franchises across the country and abroad. The objective of defendant No.1 is laid down in its MoA. The plaintiff is the life member of defendant No.1/Society and claims that his association with defendant No.1 is almost 50 years old. It is contended that the plaintiff had studied and had been a Head Body and cricket captain of Delhi Public School, Mathura Road and thus contributed in rich legacy of defendant-society.

4. The plaintiff contends that defendant No.1-Society at present has 18 life members out of which two had been inducted unlawfully. As per the MoA, the Working Committee is to be constituted according to the Rules and Regulations of the Society which shall be its Governing Body and is responsible for the policy decisions for running the schools including academic and administrative matters. The Working Committee consists of Chairpersons or Members of the Managing Committee of the Society School as well as the so called franchise schools. Relying on Rule VII of the Rules and Regulations of Delhi Public School Society (hereinafter called the DPSS), it is contended that these rules ensure democratic functioning. The relevant rules are reproduced as under:-

“Rule VIII(2)

VIII. Working Committee

2. The Working Committee shall consist of (1) Chairman, (2) Vice-Chairman, (3) Treasurer, (4) Secretary (5) Principal/Principals of Schools upto Higher Secondary level, (6) Five other persons elected by the Society from among its own members, (7) one teacher of each institution of Higher Secondary level nominated by the Chairman in consultation with its Principal and (8) Vice-Principal of Higher Secondary Schools.

One of the five elected members or any other suitable persons could be appointed as Education Member. If such a person is not a member of the Working Committee, he would became an ex officio member of the Working Committee and of the Society.” (emphasis added)

5. The plaintiff has also referred to the rules dealing with the election of the Chairperson and its powers and quoted Rule III and Rule VIII(7). The said rules, as relied upon by the plaintiff, are reproduced as under:-

“Rule III

Unless otherwise provided by the bye-laws, all disputed questions at meetings shall be determined by vote. Each member of the Society or of the Working Committee as the case may be, present at the meeting shall have one vote and the votes of the majority shall prevail. In case of equality of votes, the Chairman shall have a casting vote.”

Rule VIII(7)

“The decision of the Working Committee may in case of urgency, with the approval of the Chairman, be arrived at by circulation of the proposed and getting assent of the members of the Working Committee present at the time in Delhi”

6. It is contended by the plaintiff that he being life member of the defendant no. 1/Societ