(A) Societies Registration Act, 1860, Section 15 – Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Society election – Convening of meeting by Working President – Doctrine of necessity – Whether the Working President could have convened the election meeting for 08.09.2002 as according to the Objectors, it was only the Secretary or in the alternative the President who could have convened the meeting under the bye- laws? – President and Secretary who were authorized under the byelaws had died and no election had been held for replacing them – Even the Vice-President and the Joint-Secretary had also passed away and they had also not been replaced by any fresh elections – The only person who could be said to be managing the affairs of the Society was the Working President and in particular, when all the 16 surviving and valid members had made a request for convening a meeting, no fault could be found with the decision of the Working President to convene the meeting – The other option could have been that all the 16 members could have themselves nominated any one of the members to chair the meeting of the Executive Body and thereafter they could have proceeded to take appropriate decisions – Held that the convening of the meeting for holding the elections by Working President on 08.09.2002 cannot be faulted with. (Para20)
(B) Societies Registration Act, 1860, Section 15 – Society election – Convening of meeting by Working President – Whether the 7 Objectors were entitled to a notice for the meeting of 08.09.2002 in view of their disqualification under Section 15 of the Registration Act; Whether lack of notice to the said 7 Objectors would vitiate the entire election meeting of 08.09.2002? –Though, in the bye-laws of the present Society or the Rules of the Society, there is no such provision of automatic cessation of membership where a member goes in default of payment of membership fee for more than three months yet the effect of the proviso to Section 15 of the Registration Act which admittedly is applicable to the Society, the Objectors have to be treated as suspended members and therefore, would not be entitled to any notice as they had no right to vote or to be counted as members – Once they are not to be counted as members, there was no occasion to give them notice as such – Non-issuance of notice to the Objectors would not vitiate the proceeding of the special meeting held on 08.09.2002 – Held that a clear reading and interpretation of the proviso to Section 15 of the Registration Act would disentitle such defaulting members from being given any notice even if their membership was not terminated or ceased. (Para 26)
(C) Societies Registration Act, 1860, Section 15 – Society election – Convening of meeting by Working President – Whether invalid members had signed the requisition dated 20.08.2002 and had been elected to the Executive Committee? – Held that signatories at serial nos. 12 to 16 of the requisition dated 20.08.2002, had been duly admitted in the General Body Meeting on 11.11.2001 – The said resolution of the meeting was never challenged – The same is on record as Exhibit 131 and one of the Objectors ‘D’ was a signatory in the said proceeding – With respect to the objections relating to signatory nos. 4 to 7, the explanation is that were of the category of Employee Members – In due course they had retired from service – However, even after their retirement, they had continued to pay their subscription – As their membership(s) have continued, at this stage, objection(s) with regard to the validity thereof not being examined in detail, given the lack of clarity and absence of material facts on this aspect. (Para 27)
(D) Society election – Convening of meeting by Working President – Change report – Challenge as to – Locus standi – Whether the private respondents had the locus to be heard before any forum or to file an appeal/petition against the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner? – During the pendency of the appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner all the seven objectors had died – The Joint Charity Commissioner decided in favour of the appellants and directed for accepting the Change Report – The contesting respondent preferred a petition before the District Judge – He was neither an objector before the Assistant Charity Commissioner nor a valid member of the Society – Held that he would have no locus to maintain the petition before the District Judge – Although the contesting respondent claimed himself to be the Vice-President of the Society but has not been able to substantiate his claim – On this ground alone the District Judge ought to have dismissed the petition – Impugned judgment of the High Court and the other authorities adverse to the appellants cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside – The Change Report No.668 of 2002 deserves to be accepted – The Joint Charity Commissioner had rightly accepted it. (Para 28, 31 and 32)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 51 SC
[2024 INSC 52]
Adv Babasaheb Wasade & Ors. Vs. Manohar Gangadhar Muddeshwar & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 10846 of 2018-Decided on 23-1-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-51-SC.pdf
