Allowed

Sengundhar Dharma Rep by v. Inspector General of

Madras HC6 Oct 2017WP/16824/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes orders by registration authorities rejecting a society's amendment to its by-laws. The court held the orders arbitrary as they lacked factual support or reference to statutory minute books. It also set aside the rejection on grounds of majority, directing the Registrar to incorporate the valid amendment.

What did the court decide?

Orders of the District Registrar and Inspector General of Registration are quashed and they are directed to incorporate the amendment passed on 2.7.1995.

Sengundhar Dharma Rep by Vs Inspector General of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.10.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSITCE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NOS.16824 OF 2002

¶6

AND 9233 OF 2009

¶7

Sengundhar Dharma Paripalana Sabha a registered society No.32/56, represented by the Secretary

¶8

.. Petitioner in both W.Ps.
-vs-
1. Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road, Chennai.
2. District Registrar,
District Registrar's Office,
Palani.
.. Respondents in both
W.Ps.
3. Sengundhar Dharma Paripalana Sabhai
Palani, through its Secretary K.T.Thiagarajan
..Respondent in W.P.No.9233 of 2009
(R3 impleaded vide order dated 19.4.2011 in
M.P.No.1 of 2010)

¶9

Prayer: W.P.No.16824 of 2002: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent herein pertaining to the order bearing No.1124/B3/97 dated 23.04.2002 and quash the same and consequentially forbearing the 2^nd respondent herein from taking any further action in pursuance of the 2^nd respondent's communication bearing No.11241/B2/97dated 22.2.2002.

¶10

Prayer: W.P.No.9233 of 2009: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent herein pertaining to the order bearing No.Na.Ka.No.11241/B3/97 dated 22.02.2002 and confirmed by the 1^st respondent by order made in Pa.Mu.36775/I1/2008 dated 24.04.2009, quash the same and immediately direct 2^nd respondent to dispose the Amendment Application dated 21.07.1995 on merits.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan

¶13

For Respondents : No appearance

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner is a Society registered in the year 1956, its membership comprising of persons from the Sengunthar Community. The Society was registered on 25.06.1956 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short 'Act') and provided for all members of the Sengunthar community to become members of the Society, upon their attaining majority. This position continued for around two decades when, it was felt that the definition of 'member' called for clarification. As such, in 1987, the Managing Committee decided to amend the definition providing that only those persons who had applied for and obtained membership as certified by the Committee would be entitled to hold a membership of the Society.

¶16

The amendment was proposed to be placed before the General Body of the Society on 02.07.1995 pursuant to due notice issued to all members. The meeting was called to order but reconvened again after 30 minutes, on account of there initially having been no quorum. 375 members had initially recorded their attendance at the start of the meeting, but there appears to have been only 374 members at the time of voting for the resolutions. Two resolutions were proposed one of which prescribed the eligibility criteria for new members as follows:

¶17

kfhrig mikg;g[ ? bjd;dpe;jpahtpy; cs;s cz;ik br';Fe;j (iff;nfhsh;) Fyj;ijr; nrh;e;j 18 tajpw;F nkw;gl;l Mz; bgz; ,UghyUk; ,r;rigapd; m';fj;jpdh;fs; Mthh;fs;/ ,jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s jh;k !;jhgd';fs; if';fhpa';fs; Kjypa midtw;wpYk; , th;fSf;F chpik cz;L/

¶18

3.The minutes of meeting dated 08.06.1995 reveal that there had been 375 members initially and 374 at the time of voting and that both resolutions were passed unanimously. The Minutes were duly forwarded to the District Registrar, Palani, who according to the petitioner, did not take action to amend the by-laws incorporating the amendments passed by the general body. The petitioner, thus, filed Writ Petition No.19220 of 1998 before this Court that was ordered on 21.12.2001 directing the Registrar of Societies to dispose of the application for approval of the amended by-laws on merits and within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. An order dated 22.02.2002 was thereafter passed by the District Registrar to the effect that the amendment had not been approved by the requisite majority and hence denying registration of the same.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

An appeal was filed before the first respondent - Inspector General of Registration, that has culminated in order dated 24.04.2009 challenging in W.P.No.9233 of 2009. Pending the disposal of the appeal, he passes impugned order dated 23.04.2002 holding that all resolutions passed by the petitioner for the years 90-91, 95-96, 96-97 and 97-98 were improper since they had been passed without requisite majority and returning the resolutions unilaterally.

¶21

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent despite several opportunities having been granted. W.P.No.16824 of 2002 challenges the order of the second respondent dated 23.04.2002 and W.P.No.9233 of 2009 challenges the order of the first respondent dated 24.04.2009. No counter has been filed in either Writ Petition. In these circumstances, the averments in the Writ Petitions are accepted as uncontroverted.

¶22

The provisions of Section 29 of the Societies Registration Act, 1975 (in short, 'Act') as extracted below provides for maintenance of minutes of the proceedings of the General Meetings of the Society:

¶23

'29. Minutes of proceedings of Registered Society's General Meetings and of its Committee – (1) Every registered society shall cause minutes of all proceedings of its general meetings, and of its committee to be entered in books kept for the purpose.

¶24

(2) Any such minute, if purporting to be signed by the chairman of the meeting, at which the proceedings were held or by the chairman of the next succeeding meeting, shall be evidence of the proceedings.

¶25

(3) The books containing the minutes aforesaid and the books of account of the registered society shall be kept at the registered office of the society and shall during business hours be open to the inspection of any member free of charge.'

¶26

The resolutions passed by the Society over the years have been duly minuted and incorporated in the books of the society. There is no flaw pointed out in this regard. The only reasoning adduced by the 1st respondent in order dated 23.04.2002 is that the resolutions have not been passed by the requisite majority. Apart from this bald assertion, there is nothing placed on record to support his conclusion and consequently no justification for the same, in law or in fact. The details of meetings held, number of members that attended and resolutions passed are, in terms of section 29(3), maintained at the

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

society's office. No reference is made to the books and the order is wholly non-speaking and arbitrary.

¶29

Assuming that order dated 23.04.2002 proceeds on the basis of the earlier order of the 2nd respondent rejecting the request to incorporate and register the amendment to the definition of 'member' passed on 2.7.1995, it was incumbent upon the second respondent to have disposed of the appeal filed against order dated 22.02.2002 prior to passing the impugned order. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶30

W.P.No.9233 of 2009 challenges order dated 24.4.2009 passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the District Registrar dated 22.02.2009. The impugned order records the passing of the resolution unanimously by the General Body of the Society on 2.7.1995, but however rejects the request to incorporate the amendment on the ground that the resolution was not passed by the requisite majority. The reasoning is clearly erroneous. Section 2(j) defines a Special Resolution as follows:

¶31

'2. (j) "special resolution" means a resolution passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of such members of a registered society entitled to vote as are present in person or by proxy (where proxies are allowed) at a general meeting of which a notice of not less than such period as may be prescribed, specifying the intention to propose the resolution as a special resolution, has been duly given:

¶32

Provided that, if all the members entitled to vote at any such meeting so agree, a resolution may be passed as a special resolution at a meeting of which a notice of less than the period prescribed under this clause has been given.'

¶33

The only objection raised is that there is no evidence that 3/4 of the member have actually approved the resolution. The provision of Section 2(j) only requires 3/4 of the member of a society to be present and voting at the time of passing of the same.

¶34

There is no dispute that 375 members attended the meeting on 02.07.1995. The resolution has thus been passed by majority and the order of R1 rejecting the request for amendment is clearly incorrect in the light of Section 29(2) extracted earlier which validates the proceedings of General Members of

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

the Society upon the Chairman authenticating the same with his signature. The order of the first respondent dated 24.04.2009 is set aside and he is directed to incorporate the amendment passed in meeting dated 2.7.1995 forthwith.

¶37

W.P.No.9233 of 2009 is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS IV )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road, Chennai.
2. District Registrar,
District Registrar's Office, Palani.
+1cc to Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Advocate sr.no.72229
Writ Petition Nos.16824 of 2002
and 9233 of 2009
ss(co)
nr 27/12/2017

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sengundhar Dharma Rep by v. Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sengundhar Dharma Rep by v. Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Cholamandalam Investment Vs Mr.Binu K

M/s Cholamandalam Investment Vs The Head Master

M/s Cholamandalam Investment Vs Mr.Sunil Chouhan

A.Rajendran Vs Thenandal Studios Limited

Cholamandalam investment Vs Mr.harendrabhai U Chauhan

Cholamandalam investment Vs Mr.Rameshbhai B Jinjala