Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Beg, J.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Y.M.C.A. - Appellant
Versus
R.H.NIBLETT - Respondents
Second Appeal 1063 Of 1951
Decided On : 11/29/1956
The Allahabad Young Men's Christian Association (Y.M.C.A.) is a body corporate, controlled by a Board of Directors. Plaintiff, the Chairman of the Central Branch of the Y.M.C.A., brought an action for damages against the Board of Directors and four defendants, alleging that certain resolutions passed by the Board were defamatory and that he had suffered damages as a result of certain acts committed by defendant No. 4, the General Secretary of the Y.M.C.A. The trial court found that the resolutions were not defamatory and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages only in respect of the acts committed by defendant No. 4. The appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and held that the resolutions were defamatory and that the Board of Directors was liable for damages. The defendants appealed to the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, the Chairman of the Central Branch of the Y.M.C.A., brought an action for damages against the Board of Directors and four defendants, alleging that certain resolutions passed by the Board were defamatory and that he had suffered damages as a result of certain acts committed by defendant No. 4, the General Secretary of the Y.M.C.A.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the resolutions were not defamatory per se, that the publication of the resolutions was protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege, that the Board of Directors was not liable for the acts committed by defendant No. 4, and that the suit against the Board of Directors was not maintainable. The plaintiff's cross-objection claiming enhancement of the amount of damages awarded to him was also dismissed.
Issues: 1. Whether the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors were defamatory per se;2. Whether the publication of the resolutions was protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege;3. Whether the Board of Directors was liable for the acts committed by defendant No. 4;4. Whether the suit against the Board of Directors was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The resolutions were not defamatory per se because they were capable of two interpretations, one defamatory and the other innocent, and the plaintiff had not alleged any innuendo.;2. The publication of the resolutions was protected by the doctrine of qualified privilege because the occasion was privileged, the communication was made in discharge of a duty, and there was no evidence of express malice.;3. The Board of Directors was not liable for the acts committed by defendant No. 4 because the acts were not within the scope of defendant No. 4's employment and there was no evidence that the acts were authorized by the Board of Directors or were done with their collusion.;4. The suit against the Board of Directors was not maintainable because the Board of Directors was not a registered body and the plaintiff had not impleaded all of its members.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed against the appellants-defendants with costs in all the courts. The cross-objection of the plaintiff-respondent was also dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for damages. The suit itself was the result of certain differences that arose amongst the office bearers of a local association called the Allahabad young Mens Christian Association (hereinafter called the "y. M. C. A. " ). The Allahabad Y. M. O. A. is a body corporate, and is controlled by a Board of Directors. The Allahabad Y. M. C. A. has got several branches of which the Central Branch is the principal one. Each branch is controlled by a Committee of Management. The suit for damages was brought by Mr. R. H. Niblett, who was at the relevant time, the Chairman of the Central Branch of the Y. M. C. A. , and the Vice-President of the Board of Directors. The damages were claimed against four defendants. Defendant No. 1 was the Board of Directors of the Y. M. C. A. It was sued through its President. Defendant No. 2 was Dr. Malvea, the President of the Board of Directors. Defendant No. 3 was rt. Rev. Ralla Ram, a member of the Board of Directors. Defendant No. 4 was Mr. G. Eddy, the general Secretary of the local Y. M. C. A. , the Secretary of the Central Branch, and an Ex. Officio Member of the Board of Directors. Defendant No. 2 Dr. Malvea died during the pendency of the suit, and his name was struck off from the record.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff came to court with the following allegations. The plaintiff retired from service as a Magistrate and Collector in the year 1945. In the beginning of 1947, he rented some rooms in the Central Branch of the Y. M. C. A. , for his residence, and shortly after that, he was elected as the Vice-President of the Board of Directors. At the end of September, 1947, Mr. Eddy who was the General Secretary of the Allahabad Y. M. C. A. also became the Secretary of the Central Branch. The plaintiff went away to Nainital about the end of April, 1948, and came back from there in the beginning of October, 1948. On his return he discovered that the accounts of the Central Branch were in a serious muddle. When Mr. Eddy was asked to explain the accounts, he refused to do it. Thereafter, the plaintiff made a detailed report about the matter to Dr. Malvea on the 27th September, 1948 and followed it up with a summary of charges against Mr. Eddy on the 6th of November, 1948. At this instance, a-meeting of the Board of Directors was called on the 8th November, 1948, to consider the charges. At this meeting, the defendants Dr. Malvea, Rt. Rev. Ralla Ram and Mr. Eddy in collusion with other members of the Board maliciously caused the following resolutions to be passed:-
" (1) The Board of Directors of the Allahabad Y. M. C. A. , at their emergent meeting held on the 8th November, 1948, at 6 P. M. , at the Central Branch Y. M. C. A. , 13, Queens Road, Examined the charges made by Mr. R. H. Niblett against Mr. G. Eddy, the General Secretary of the allahabad Y. M. C. A. There was placed before it a report of Mr. P. Robinson, the auditor, who had been appointed by the Committee of Management of the Central Branch and with the full consent of Mr. R. H. Niblett; to audit the accounts of the Board, found these charges entirely baseless and exonerated the General Secretary of all the charges on the basis of the Auditors report. (2) That in our judgment, Mr. R. H. Niblett owes to the General Secretary an unqualified apology for bringing up these unwarranted charges against the General Secretary. (3) That we authorise the President of the Board of Directors to send a communication to the national General Secretary of the Y. M. C. As. and report these actions to them. (4) That Mr. Niblett should be asked to resign from the Chairmanship of the Central Branch, Y. M. C. A. forthwith. (5) That in view of our opinion that it is inadvisable for Mr. Niblett to stay in the Y. M. C. A. where the General Secretary resides and works, Mr. Niblett be asked to vacate the flat that he is occupying in the Central Branch Y. M. C. A. , and that a months notice be given to him. (6) That Mr. R. C.
AI
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
