Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHRI GURU SINGH SABHA & ANOTHER versus ASTT. REGISTRAR, FIRMS SOCIETIES AND CHITS & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shri Guru Singh Sabha & Another v. Astt. Registrar, Firms Societies And Chits & Another - WRIT - C No. 41939 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 2540 (1 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  41939 of 1997

Shri Guru Singh Sabha and another

Vs.

Assistant Registrar and anther

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.  

This writ petition was filed in the year 1997 against an order dated 11.11.1997 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 by which he came to the conclusion that the meetings held by the petitioner society on 5.3.1996 and 31.3.1996 were bad and the amendment in the rules made by the petitioner by virtue of resolutions passed in the meetings dated 5.3.1996 and 31.3.1996 were also bad.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner, which is a registered society had 56 members in 1997. The petitioner sought to make changes in their rules by which they wanted to introduce a rule that the election would be held in the petitioner society after every five years. The unamended rules did not contain any stipulation with regard to the period when the elections should have been held. The petitioner society, therefore, according to its own version held meetings on 5.3.1996 and 31.3.1996 and approved and changed the rules and introduced new rules that elections would be held in every five years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner society has argued that under section 4-A changes in the rules are to be intimated to the Registrar and only intimation thereof is required. According to him, no approval is to be sought under the said section.

Six members of the said society who according to the petitioner were not there and have been ousted earlier filed a complaint that the meetings held on 5.3.1996 and finally approved on 31.3.1996 were fictitious and bad and so-called meeting was nothing but a fraud upon every member of the society who were not even present when the alleged meeting took place.

It is on this complaint the Assistant Registrar opened proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued and in support of his case, has filed 49 affidavits to show that meeting of the petitioner society held on 5.3.1996 as approved on 31.3.1996 was actually held and a resolution was actually passed. He states in the writ petition that he tried to file affidavits in the shape of evidence, which were not taken on record by the Assistant Registrar while hearing the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Assistant Registrar of the Societies on his own introduced the issue that 29 members were expelled wrongly. Meanwhile the Assistant Registrar has not made any mistake in this respect because the complaint was made by six members in respect of irregularities made by the general body, which had wrongfully ousted 29 members.

In reply Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate has argued that section 4-A of U.P. Act no. 52 of 1975 is not to be read alone but is to be read along with the provision of section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 wherein it is a requirement that once in every year, a list relating to the members of the society and the annual general meeting of the society are to be filed before the Assistant Registrar. He has also relied on sub-section (2) of section 4 which reads as under:

"(2) Together with list mentioned in sub-section (1) there shall be sent to the Registrar a copy of the memorandum of association including any alteration, extension, or abridgement of purposes made under section 12, and of the rules of the society corrected upto date and certified by not less than three of the members of the said governing body to be a correct copy and also a copy of the balance sheet for the preceding year of account."

Upon a combined reading of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the section 4-A of U.P. Amendment, it appears that the Assistant Registrar of the Societies had the jurisdiction to look into the matter with regard to the complaint made by the members that the meetings held on 5.3.1986 and 31.3.1986 were fraudulent or not.

From the facts and circumstances, it appears that by seeking amendment in the rules for a fix term of the elected governing body for five years, the petitioner society was seeking to extend its own term, which otherwise would have come to an end within the period of one year. Subsequent elections have taken place and the cause of action, if any, to the petitioner in this regard does not survive.

The Societies Registration Act 1860 contemplates details of the society including any alteration, extension or abridgement of purposes made under section 12 and of the rules of the society corrected upto date shall be laid before the Assistant Registrar.

Sri Shashi Nandan has argued that it is under this provision that Assistant Registrar took cognizance of the entire matter before him and came to the conclusion that the meetings held on 5.3.1996 and confirmed on 31.3.1996 were held fraudulently. He also came to the finding of fact that 29 members have been wrongfully excluded and also came to the conclusion that it was the practice of the society that election should be held every year and this practice has been ignored.

The arguments as raised by Sri Shashi Nandan learned senior counsel for the respondents have force in it and are liable to be accepted.

It is an admitted fact to the both parties that elections of the society were to be held every year despite the fact that no term was prescribed in the amended rules. This rule was prevalent prior to the meetings held on 5.3.1996 and 31.3.1996.

The present writ petition was filed by society through its General Secretary Sardar Joginder Singh who was the General Secretary at that time and at present is also life member of the society.

In my opinion, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of the Societies on its findings is correct. He has examined the whole issue in hand and has come to the conclusion that meetings held on 5.3.1996 and 31.3.1996 were not properly convened. He has also, while examining the issue, come to the conclusion that elections of the society were being held every year. No prejudice is, therefore, caused to the petitioner by passing of this order. The order of the Assistant Registrar requires no interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

However I will make clear that it is always open to any member of the society to seek changes or alteration in the rules by of resolution passed in the meeting of the society and approve it by majority of its members.

The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Dated 1.2.2006.

Rk.41939.97


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.