Divided jurisdiction bench upheld the dismissal of a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order that vacated an interim injunction. The Court held the suit was non-maintainable as filed by a removed secretary and found no error in the trial or appellate courts.
Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 20th October, 2023 Date of Decision: 04th January, 2024
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.K. Yati and Mr. Sahib Malhotra, Advocates.
versus
SHRINIWAS SHARMA & ANR.
..... Respondents Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Kamal Gupta, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Mr. Manish Vashist and Ms. Kirti Gupta, Advocates for R-2
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 1 of 10
Court’) in civil suit bearing CS No. 364/2019.
3.1. The Respondent No.1 holds himself out to be the founder and lifetime member of the Association and Respondent No. 2 is presently acting as the President of the Association on the basis of the elections of National Body held on 05.05.2019.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 2 of 10
Kumar Bidhuri claiming to be the National Secretary of Association seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction on Petitioner’s behalf. 5.1. Sh. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC sought the following reliefs on behalf of the Association:
“i) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendant no.4 from officiating and discharging the responsibility of the National Secretary of the plaintiff association and participating in the affairs and administration of the plaintiff association in any manner whatsoever. (not granted by Trial Court)
ii) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendant no. 1 to 4 from implementing the decision taken in the national executive committee Meeting on 02.03.2019 held at held at Mount Abu Public School, Sector-5, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 in respect of conducting the election of national body on 05.05.2019 and any other decision taken in the alleged National Executive Committee Meeting. (granted by Trial Court)
iii) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendant no. 1 from the participating in the management, administration and controlling the affairs of the plaintiff association and signing any letter, notice and communication on behalf of the HSGA. (granted by Trial Court)
iv) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendant no. 2 to 4 from the participating in the management, administration and controlling the affairs of the plaintiff association and signing any letter, notice and communication on behalf of the HSGA. (not granted by Trial Court)
v) pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendant no.5 thereby the defendant no. 5 from entertaining any kind of notices /correspondences/letters/representation issued by the defendant no. 1 to 4 in respect of the affair of the plaintiff association and further restrain from recognizing them as office bearers of the HSGA. (not granted by Trial Court)
5.2. As noted earlier, the Trial Court vide order dated 03.05.2019 only granted the interim reliefs at prayer nos. (ii) and (iii) to the Association, however, the said order has been set aside by the Appellate Court vide its
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 3 of 10
impugned order.
Arguments of the Respondents i.e., defendants
7.1. He states that in the plaint, Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri has held himself out to be the National Secretary of the Association; whereas he admittedly stood removed from the said post on 21.02.2019. He states that after his removal, the defendant no. 4 i.e., Mr. Champat Singh, stood appointed as the National Secretary on 21.02.2019, which appointment was confirmed by the Association at its National Executive Committee meeting held on 02.03.2019.
7.2. He states that the Trial Court duly noted these facts of removal of Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri as the National Secretary and in view thereof declined the interim reliefs (i) and (iv) vide its order dated 03.05.2019. He states that the reasons recorded by the Trial Court while declining relief nos.(i) and (iv) itself made the grant of the interim relief no.(ii) unsustainable and contrary to law.
7.3. He states that Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri has not challenged his removal as the National Secretary till date despite the provision of appeal against expulsion under Rule 8 the Rules and Regulations of Association (‘Rules’) or in any appropriate forum. And, therefore, the Trial Court erred in entertaining the suit filed by him in the name of the Association, which as per Rule 39 can only be filed by a National Secretary.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 4 of 10
7.4. He states that Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri has not challenged the findings at paragraph 14 and 15 of the of the Trial Court’s order dated 03.05.2019 declining the reliefs nos. (i), (iv) and (v). He states that Mr. Champat Singh, i.e., defendant no.4 has been acting as the National Secretary since 2019-2023 (till date) and therefore, no cause for restraint at this belated stage is made out. He states for the said reason additionally, the present petition cannot be maintained.
7.5. He states that the elections of the National Body of the Association were held on 05.05.2019 and Respondent No.2 was elected as the President. He states that rest of the members were elected unopposed. He states that the elected members (i.e., the officer bearers) have been arrayed as defendants and the suit has been instituted in the name of the Association by a person who no longer holds the post of an office bearer; and therefore, the suit filed in the name of the Association is contrary to Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (‘Act of 1860’).
7.6. He states that on the date of the filing of the suit i.e., 06.03.2019, Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri, having ceased to be the National Secretary (as on 21.02.2019), he was not authorised to file a suit on behalf of and in the name of the Association.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 5 of 10
9.1. The learned counsels state that the office bearers of the Association elected on 05.05.2019 have been continuing to manage the affairs of the said Association and any order of restraint in the year 2023 will cause disruptions; especially since the elections held on 05.05.2019 have not been challenged in the present proceedings.
Arguments of the Petitioner i.e., the plaintiff
10.2. He states that on merits the notice dated 09.02.2019 issued by defendant no.2, Dr. Atul Kumar, calling for the National Executive Committee meeting on 02.03.2019 itself is invalid since as per Rule 22(d) of the Rules, the notice could only have been issued by defendant no.2 in the absence and with the consultation of National Secretary, which at time of issuance of notice was Sh. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri. He states that the defendants have not proved anything on record to show that Sh. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri was absent from the Association and was not attending his duties. 10.3. He states that thus, the resolutions passed at the said meeting held on 02.03.2019 are invalid. He states that in these circumstances the suit was rightly instituted for seeking restraint on holding of elections of National Body scheduled for 05.05.2019.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 6 of 10
Analysis and findings
12.1. As per the Rules, the term of the National Body is three (3) years and the term of the National Executive Committee is co-terminus. Thus, the term of the office bearers who were elected on 05.05.2019 in ordinary course would have come to an end in three (3) years; however, due to the pendency of this litigation, the said office bearers are continuing to manage the affairs of the Association.
12.2. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is proceeding to adjudicate the rival pleas of the parties.
13.1. Though, it is contended that the said order of removal is illegal, it is a matter of record that the said order dated 21.02.2019 has not been assailed by Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri in terms of provision of appeal against expulsion set out in Rule 8 of the Rules or before any legal forum including the suit from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 7 of 10
which the present proceedings emanate.
13.2. Therefore, the institution of the suit by Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri in the name of the Association (as on 06.03.2019) after his removal on 21.02.2019 itself was impermissible in terms of Rule 39 of the Rules as well as Section 6 of the Act of 1860. Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri while filing the suit himself relied upon Rule 39 of the Rules, which is pari materia to Section 6 of the Act of 1860. Thus, once these facts were brought before the Trial Court which evidenced the non-maintainability of the suit at the instance of Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri, the Trial Court could not have entertained the suit and the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim reliefs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 8 of 10
03.05.2019 which was binding on the Association at the relevant time. It is a matter of record that no stay was operating against the Trial Court’s order dated 03.05.2019 at that point. As per record, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC filed by the Petitioner for violation of the order dated 03.05.2019 is pending.
1 (1997) 3 SCC 443
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 9 of 10
25.05.2022 and this order shall not be relied upon by the Respondents as an expression of affirmation of the elections held on 05.05.2019 as legal. The impugned order dated 25.05.2022 and this order has been passed in view of the fact that the institution of the suit by Mr. Vinod Kumar Bidhuri on 06.03.2019 has been found to be non-maintainable.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JANUARY 4, 2024/ msh/hp/aa
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Rashmi Dabas Signing Da te:0 6.12.2023 20:47:16
CM(M) 746/2022 Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the Appellate Court’s order setting aside the Trial Court's interim injunction.
Whether the suit instituted by a removed National Secretary was maintainable in view of the Association's internal rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & Anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.Applied¶18
(1997) 3 SCC 443 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
HINDUSTAN SCOUTS AND GUIDES ASSOCIATION
SHRINIWAS SHARMA
ANR
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
