Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 842 (BOM)

Aryan Education Society v. Sameer Narayan Bhoir

2010-06-22

R.C.CHAVAN

body2010
Judgment :- By these two Appeals the Appellant Education Society takes exception to the common order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay on Notices of Motion No.16 of 2010 in Short Cause Suit No.2828 of 2009 & Notice of Motion No.17 of 2010 in Short Cause Suit No.2827 of 2009. 2. The Plaintiffs in the two Suits were President and Secretary of the Appellant-Education Society. It was alleged that they had asked for donations for the Society without any authorization from the Management while recruiting teachers for Schools run by the Society. The Managing Committee, therefore, discussed the conduct of the Plaintiffs in the two suits from time to time, and, in the meeting dated 1st December, 2009, removed the two Plaintiffs from the membership of the Society. Aggrieved thereby, the Plaintiffs approached the City Civil Court by filing two suits and by taking out two Notices of Motion prayed for injunction restraining the Appellant-Society from implementing the Resolution whereby names of the two Plaintiffs were removed from the membership of the Society and from preventing the Plaintiffs from discharging duties of their posts. 3. These Notice of Motions were contested by the Appellant-Society, who filed appropriate replies wherein it is also stated that the Society had already filled up the posts of the two Plaintiffs. In course of hearing of the Appeals, it was pointed out that the period of Managing Committee had come to an end and therefore, fresh elections were scheduled to be held shortly. Maintainability of the suit without obtaining permission under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act was raised as a ground. But it was not specifically pressed. 4. After hearing the parties the learned Judge held that the Plaintiffs in the two Suits had established prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in their favour. He, therefore, proceeded to allow Notices of Motion and granted injunctions as prayed for by the Plaintiffs. Aggrieved thereby, the Society is before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at sufficient length and also allowed them time to attempt an amicable settlement. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, that the learned Trial Judge erred in granting the reliefs to the Plaintiffs, erroneously holding that the Plaintiffs did not have adequate notice of their proposed expulsion, has to be rejected. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, that the learned Trial Judge erred in granting the reliefs to the Plaintiffs, erroneously holding that the Plaintiffs did not have adequate notice of their proposed expulsion, has to be rejected. Though, the learned Counsel for the Appellants was at pains to point out from the Minutes of various Meetings held that the conduct of the Plaintiffs was discussed, the Agendas of none of these Meetings show that the question of expulsion of the Appellants was at any time put on the Agenda. 6. It appears from the proceedings of the Meeting which have been placed on record that the Respondents in fact expressed regrets for what had happened. In the Meeting dated 1st December, 2009 for the first time a reference was made to Clause 12(o) of the Memorandum of the Association which reads as under:- "(o) To supervise and control generally the conduct of all the employees of the Society and to remove as accasion may require, on reasonable grounds, the name of any Member from the rolls of the Society by a majority of two-thirds of the Members present, or take such other steps in that behalf as the Council may deem expedient." The question is not whether the Committee had the power to initiate action against the Plaintiffs. The question is whether that power was properly exercised. As rightly observed by the learned Trial Judge, it was impermissible for the Appellants to have a Resolution passed in a Meeting without placing such a subject on the Agenda. Removal of a member from membership of the Society is a serious matter and unless principles of natural justice are fully complied such expulsion would not be readily accepted by the Courts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Judge erred in restraining the Appellants from acting on a Resolution passed in a Meeting dated 1st December, 2009, even though the injunction issued may take the character of final relief granted at adinterim stage. In such matters, if relief is not immediately granted the lis itself may become infructuous with passage of time. Even, now, the Appellants are in the process of holding elections and therefore, the entire scenario would change by keeping the Plaintiffs out of the fray. In such matters, if relief is not immediately granted the lis itself may become infructuous with passage of time. Even, now, the Appellants are in the process of holding elections and therefore, the entire scenario would change by keeping the Plaintiffs out of the fray. In this glaring case of failure to follow principles of natural justice, it cannot be said that discretion exercised by the learned Trial Judge calls for any interference by this Court. The learned Trial Judge rightly held that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and would suffer irreparable loss, if the injunction was not granted in their favour. 7. Both the Appeals are, therefore, dismissed.