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

2013 Supreme(MP) 1203

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Alok Aradhe, J.
Pushpa Berry - Appellant
Versus
Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad and Another - Respondent
S.A. No. 137 of 2010
Decided On : 26-09-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :J.P. Sanghi, Senior Advocate and Ajay S.K. Shukla
For the Respondents: Ashok Lalwani

The applicability of the 1950 Act to properties of the Trust and the standing of the plaintiff to file the suit.

Headnote:

Societies Registration Act - Dispute over Branch Management - Societies Registration Act, 1860, Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - 1860 Act, 1950 Act

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed suit against the Society alleging illegal closure of Jabalpur Branch. Trial Court allowed the suit, but lower Appellate Court dismissed it citing provisions of 1950 Act.

Finding of the Court:

Trial Court held plaintiff as a member of the society and manager of the branch, thus having the right to file the suit. Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit citing provisions of 1950 Act.

Issues: Validity of suit under 1950 Act, plaintiff's standing to file the suit, and jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The 1950 Act applies to properties of the Trust situate in the State, and the suit against the Trust can be filed outside the State. Plaintiff's standing to file the suit was upheld by the trial Court.

Final Decision: The judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court were set aside, and that of the trial Court was restored.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, J.:-

This appeal is by the plaintiff which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial question of law:--

Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in law in upsetting and reversing the findings wherein the trial Court allowed the suit?

Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff filed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that Shri Mahila Grin Udyog Lijjat Pappad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short the 1860 Act') as well as under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for brevity the 1950 Act'). The defendant No. 1 opened its Branch at Jabalpur on 12-2-1975 and by order dated 10-8-1976 authorized the plaintiff to function as Manager of the Branch. It was further pleaded that whole assets and liabilities of Jabalpur Branch belong to the plaintiff and the defendants have not invested any amount. However, the defendant No. 1, on the basis of charges levelled against the plaintiff, namely, that there has been deterioration in quality of 'Pappad'; plaintiff has distributed pamphlets containing defamatory material against the society; and has furnished wrong information with regard to stock, passed a resolution dated 24-2-1978 by which it was decided to close down the Jabalpur Branch. The resolution was conveyed to the plaintiff vide letter dated 26-2-1978 and thereafter notice dated 28-2-1978 was also sent by the society through its counsel. The plaintiff thereupon filed a suit seeking relief of declaration that the resolution dated 24-2-1978 passed by the Managing Committee of the Society is illegal and is inoperative. The plaintiff also sought permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from taking any action against the plaintiff or its institution.

2. The defendants filed written statement in which, inter alia, it was pleaded that defendant No. 1 is registered as a society under the 1860 Act as well as 1950 Act. It was further pleaded that trade mark, namely, "Lijjat" has been registered with the Registrar of Trade Mark on 28-4-1967 in society's name. It was further pleaded that Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association have been framed in the year 1966 and were amended in the years 1973 and 1976, respectively. It was also pleaded that Branches of society are autonomous in all respects and assets and liabilities belong to the each of the Branch and they function independently subject to overall control and supervision of defendant No. 1. It was also pointed out that none of the members of the Jabalpur Branch has, at any point of time, applied or has been granted membership of the society. In paragraph 6 of the written statement it was stated that defendant No. 1 has not invested any amount in Jabalpur Branch and the entire assets and liabilities of Jabalpur Branch belong to the plaintiff. It was also pointed out that society has granted a gratuitous licence to Jabalpur Branch to use its trade mark which is determinable at its will and since the subject matter of the suit pertains to internal management of the society, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30-8-2006, inter alia, held that in view of Article 1(B) of Articles of Association, if a woman starts working for the society, she becomes a member thereof. It was further held, on the basis of Exhibits-P-6 and P-20, that plaintiff and other persons working in Jabalpur Branch were invited to attend the annual general meeting held on 26-9-1977. Accordingly, it was held that the plaintiff being the member of the society and Manager of Jabalpur Branch has the right to institute the suit. The trial Court further held that there is no express agreement between Jabalpur Branch and the Society to use the trade mark. But, since the Society has recognized the Jabalpur Branch as its Branch, therefore, Jabalpur






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top