Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Paras Kumar Jain & Others v. Swatambar Sthankawasi Jain Sabha & Others - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 2532 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 1164 (14 October 2004)


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).


Court No.1

FAFO No. 2532 of 2004

Paras Kumar Jain and others Defendant -appellants


Swatamber Sthanakwasi Jain Sabha and others ... Plaintiff-respondents

Hon'be Yatindra Singh, J

Hon'ble VS Bajpai, J.

1. There is a society known as Swatamber Sthanakwasi Jain Sabha situate at Jain Nagar Meerut city (the Sabha). This society was registered on 29.8.1980 (Registration No. 1835). Sri Darshan Lal Jain was elected as president of the  Society on 9.1.2000. No election for other post was held. He nominated other office bearers. Sri SC Jain was nominated as secretary of the  Sabha. One Surendra Kumar Jain filed original suit no. 111 of 2000 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC against Sri Darshan Lal Jain, Sri SC Jain  and others for permanent injunction restraining them from dealing with the property of the Sabha. In this suit,  with consent of all parties it was decided to hold fresh election and one Sri Satish Kumar Jain, Advocate was appointed as Election Officer on 22.2.2001. Sri Satish Kumar Jain held  the elections on  18.3.2001 and charge was also handed over to the newly elected office bearers on 9.4.2001. In this election, apart from other  office bearers,  Sri Rakesh Mohan was elected as the secretary.

2. Every society has to renew its registration. The Sabha did not apply for renewal and became unregistered society. Sri Rakesh Mohan after the elections could either apply for renewal or get new registration. However he did not apply for renewal  of the registration but  applied for grant of new registration.  The Sabha  was registered with the same name (registration no. 1226) on 11.3.2002. Sri Rakesh Mohan held fresh elections on 6.3.2003 in which one Sri SC Jain  (Tudor) was  elected as secretary. Sri SC Jain (Tudor) is a person different than Sri SC Jain who was nominated as secretary by Sri Darshan Lal Jain and who was defendant in OS no. 111 of 2000. The word Tudor is being used to differentiate between the two.  

3. Sri SC Jain (who was nominated by Sri Darshan Lal Jain as secretary and  defendant in the OS No. 111 of 2000) claiming himself to be the secretary of the Sabha filed an application on 23.12.2002  for renewal of the Sabha. The Registrar  passed an order on 31.5.2003 cancelling the new registration of the Sabha dated 11.3.2002  however he held that election dated 18.3.2001 is valid and renewal should be granted in light of this election.

4. Sri Rakesh Mohan (the earlier secretary who was elected in the election held by the court) or Sri SC Jain (Tudor) ( the new Secretary elected in the elections held by Sri Rakesh Mohan) had not applied for renewal of the Sabha by the time  the Registrar passed its order dated 31.5.2003. After this order, Sri SC Jain (Tudor) filed an application on 12.6.2003 for the renewal of the registration of the Sabha along with necessary fees. The Registrar renewed the registration on 30.6.2003. This order does not indicate whether it was on the application of  Sri SC Jain  (Tudor) filed on 12.6.2003, or on the application of Sri SC Jain dated 23.12.2002. It is relevant to point out that Sri SC Jain (Tudor) has filed an appeal against the order dated 31.5.2003 in which the Commissioner has stayed this order also.

5. Sri SC Jain had applied for renewal on 23.2.2002, thereafter according to his group, he is no longer secretary but one Sri Paras Nath Jain was elected as Secretary on 28.12.2002 and then on 12.1.2004. Sri SC Jain (Tudor) claiming himself to be the secretary of the Sabha  filed the present suit for permanent injunction against Sri Paras Nath Jain and others restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs' working as office bearers of the Sabha. In this suit plaintiffs filed an application for interim injunction. On this application initially an order of status quo was granted and subsequently on 7.9.2004, the court below has granted temporary injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering in the functioning of the plaintiff. Hence the present appeal.

6. We have heard Sri RN Singh, Senior Advocate, Sri Anurag Khanna, counsel for the defendant-appellants and Sri Pankaj Mittal and Sri Ajai Rajendra counsels for the plaintiff-respondents.

7. There is no dispute between the parties that Sri Darshan Lal was elected as president of the Society on 9.1.2000. The dispute arose on the office bearers nominated by him. Sri SC Jain was nominated by him as the secretary of the Sabha. In the earlier original suit no. 111 of 2000 this nomination was challenged. In this suit, the defendants had filed written statement and admitted that terms of office bearer is two years and not one year. In this suit the court, with the consent of the parties, appointed Sri Satish Chandra Jain, Advocate as election officer to conduct fresh elections. In this election, Sri Rakesh Mohan was elected as the Secretary. This election was approved and charge was handed over to him. It was he who was entitled to manage the Sabha.

8. Sri SC Jain, claiming himself to be the secretary of the Sabha, filed an application for renewal of the registration on 23.12.2002. He was neither electd in the election held by the court nor does he  claim to be elected in any election held by Sri Rakesh Mohan. It is not clear as to how he became secretary of the Sabha. Sri Paras Nath Jain claims through elections alleged to be held on 28.12.2002 and 12.1.2004. These elections were not held by Sri Rakesh Mohan. Sri Rakesh Mohan held elections on 6.3.2003 in which Sri SC Jain (Tudor) was elected. There is nothing to show any authority for holding elections on 28.12.2002. The defendant appellants, claim their rights  through election dated 28.12.2002 and then on 12.1.2004; prima facie these elections  are not valid. The elections dated 6.3.2003 are prima facie valid; two year period is not over and the term has not expired.  In these circumstances there is no illegality in the impugned order. The appeal has no merit; it is dismissed.

Dated: 14.10.2004



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


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 |

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