SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1974 Supreme(P&H) 58

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.K.Mahajan and Pritam Singh Pattar JJ.
Patiala Aviation Club
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana
Letter Patent Appeal No. 612 of 1973,
Decided On : MARCH 28, 1974

The authority to file an appeal must be provided for in the rules and regulations of a society, and in the absence of such provision, a resolution by the governing body is necessary.

Headnote:

Competency - Writ of Certiorari - Societies Registration Act, 1860

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari against the order of the Labour Court, which was rejected by the Single Judge. The present appeal was filed against this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appeal was filed by an incompetent person as the rules and regulations of the Society did not provide for the authority to file an appeal, and no resolution was passed by the governing body of the Society.

Issues: Competency of the appellant to file the appeal

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which stipulates that a society may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal secretary, or trustees as determined by the rules and regulations of the society. In the absence of such determination, a resolution by the governing body is necessary.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as having been filed by an incompetent person.

Judgment

D.K.Mahajan, J.

1. This is an appeal under C1. X of the Letters Patent and is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana, dated August 10, 1970.

2. The appellant, through its manger, Shri Swaran Singh, filed the petition referred to above, against the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana, the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, the State of Punjab, and Shri Hari Parkash, an Ex-Employee of the Club. This petition was heard by Mr. Justice M.R. Sharma, and the learned Judge rejected the same. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Narinder Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, that the appeal has been preferred without proper authority and therefore, is not competent. The learned Counsel places reliance on Murti Shri Raghunath Ji V/s. Joginder Singh, 1971 Cur LJ 47, a Division Bench decision of this Court wherein it was held as follows:-

-

"After the suit had been partly decreed, the Committee had to again decide whether to go up in appeal against that order or not. If the rules and regulations had authorised the Secretary or the President or both to take a decision in that respect, then they could individually or jointly take such a decision. But if the said rules and regulations did not give that power to the office bearers concerned, then the Committee had to by means of a resolution take a decision of filing an appeal and also authorise somebody to take steps in that direction. That is necessary because some expense has to be incurred in filing the appeal and for that purpose the Committee has to apply its mind whether it is worthwhile doing so or not."

In the present case, there is no dispute that the Aviation Club, Patiala, is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 6 of that Act which are in the following terms:

"Every society registered under this Act may sue or be sued in the name of the president, chairman, or principal secretary, or trustees, as shall be determined by the rules and regulations of the society, and, in default of such determination, in the name of such person as shall be appointed by the governing body for the occasion: Provided that it shall be competent for any person having a claim or demand against society to sue the president or chairman, or principal secretary or the trustees thereof, if on application to the governing body some other officer or person be not nominated to be the defendants ;"

either the rules and regulations would provide for taking care of the litigation at all its stages or for every stage in litigation, a resolution will have to be passed by the governing body of the Society. In the present case, the rules and regulations are silent on this matter. There is no resolution by the governing body of the Society. In fact, it is stated that the Club is a defunct body and a Manager has been appointed under Rule 20(b) of the Rules and Regulations of the Society. Rule 20 deals with special powers of the State Government. The State Government has passed the following order dated July 3, 1973, the relevant part of which is reproduced below:

"He will exercise all the executive, financial and administrative powers conferred upon the Managing Committee for the management of the Club subject, however, to the limitations of the Rules and Regulations and the directives of the Director-General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi. The Manager shall draw and disburse any amount required for the purpose of the Club and do all such acts deemed fit for the furtherance of the cause of the club. He will also approve the annual accounts of the Club, but for appointment of Auditors and all




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top