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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 13079

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Debangsu Basak, Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ
SUKHLAL CHANDANMULL (P) LTD – Appellant
Versus
HARROW HALL – Respondent
APO 27 / 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Md. Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Shaunak Mukhopadhyay, Anuradha Poddar
For the Respondents: Dhruba Ghosh, Rohit Banerjee, Altamash Alim

A suit initiated against a society is maintainable even if the pleading names the office-bearer's title rather than the specific natural person, as the statutory authority granted by a governing body pertains to the office itself rather than an individual.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Registered Society - Suits and proceedings - Section 19 of the relevant Societies Act - Whether a suit against a society is barred for failing to specify the name of the natural person holding the office of Secretary in the plaint - Held, no - Statutory provisions permit suit in the name of the President, Secretary, or authorized office-bearer - Requirement pertains to the post, not the natural person - Authority conferred by a governing body is to the office itself (Paras 15, 16).

(B) Appeals - Scope - Appellate court setting aside an order rejecting a plaint is proper when the lower court erroneously interprets provisions regarding representation of a society - Permissive language in statutes does not preclude suits in the name of the association itself (Paras 18, 26).

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff initiated a suit against a society, identifying it in the cause title as a society represented by its secretary. The defendant filed an application under the procedural law claiming the suit was barred because the specific natural person serving as the secretary was not named. The lower court allowed the application, leading to the current appeal.

Findings of Court:
The authorization provided by the governing body of a society serves to validate the representation for the office-bearer's position. Therefore, the failure to identify the specific natural person currently occupying that position does not render the suit non-maintainable.

Issues: The primary issue was whether a suit against a registered society is legally barred for naming the office-bearer's post instead of the specific natural person serving in that capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal authority to sue or be sued is granted to the office (post) rather than to the specific natural person. Since the law allows representation through the office-bearer, the description of the post constitutes valid adherence to the procedural requirements.

Result: Appeal allowed.

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 12, 2025 passed in IA GA 7 of 2022 in CS 364 of 2014.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant filed a suit for eviction against the defendant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the defendant was enjoying the tenancy under the appellant. He draws the attention of the Court to the cause title of the plaint. He submits that, the defendant is described as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act represented through its Secretary. He also draws the attention of the Court to Section 19 of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. He submits that, under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1961, every society may sue or be sued in the name of the President, the Secretary or any office bearer authorised by the Governing Body in that behalf.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the word “in the name of” as used in Section 19 of the Act 1961 should be understood to mean that it refers to the office of the President, the Secretary or any Office Bearer authorised by the Governing Body. He submits that there is no infirmity in the description of the defendant as appearing in the cause title of the plaint.

5. In support of the contention that, suit cannot be dismissed under Section 19 of the Act of 1961 learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon (2003) 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 583 ( Kalpana Sarkar vs. Ramkrishna Mission ), and an unreported decision of the learned Single Judge dated August 28, 2023 rendered in C.O. No. 1344 of 2023 ( Salkia Vivekananda Sporting Club vs. Bankey Lal Jaiswal ).

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent submits that, the suit as against the respondent is not maintainable in view of Section 19 of the Act of 1961. He refers to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1961 and contends that the name of the natural person holding the post of President, the Secretary, or the Office Bearer of the association who is authorised by the Governing Body of the association to sue or be sued on behalf of the association, is required to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon AIR 1977 Cal 437 (12, I.C. Bose Road Tenants’ Association vs. Collector of Howrah & Ors.) and (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 413 (Illachi Devi (Dead) by Lrs. And Ors. Vs. Jain Society, Protection of Orphans India and Ors.) in support of the contention that, a society registered under the Act of 1961 does not enjoy the status of the company. It is not a juristic person.

8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent relies upon (2010) 3 Calcutta High Court Notes 755 (Sha-San Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Thakur Corner Buabsayee Kalyan Samity & Ors. and 2009 Supreme Court Cases OnLine Cal 909 ( National Council of YMCA’s of India vs. Skippers Textiles Private Ltd. ) in support of the contention that, the suit by or against a registered society without the President or Secretary or Office Bearer of the society not being named, is not maintainable.

9. The appellant as the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant. In the cause title of the plaint the plaintiff described the defendant as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act represented through its Secretary.

10. The defendant/resopndent applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of the suit on the ground that, the suit is barred by law. Section 19 of the Act of 1961 is pressed to contend that the suit as framed is barred by law.

11. Section 19 of the Act of 1961 is as follows :

“19. Suits and proceedings by and against a society. –

(1) Every society may sue or may be sued in the na

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
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