Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 291 (TS)

DRF Employees Welfare Society v. V. Swaminathan

2020-02-18

SHAMEEM AKTHER

body2020
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/respondents in the S.O.P.No.1405 of 2018, challenging the order, dated 25.10.2018, passed in I.A.No.1183 of 2018 in S.O.P.No.1405 of 2018, by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. 3. The respondent herein, who is a member of the petitioner No.1 Society, filed the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 before the Court below against the petitioner No.1 Society, the Secretary and President of the said Society (Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 herein), seeking certain substantial reliefs. The petitioners herein have filed the subject Interlocutory Application before the Court below under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the main petition, i.e., O.P.No.1405 of 2018 inter alia on the ground that the said petition is not maintainable under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Court below, vide impugned order, dated 25.10.2018, dismissed the subject interlocutory application. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner No.1 Society and the Secretary and President of the said Society (Petitioner Nos.2 & 3) filed this Civil Revision Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ respondents would contend that the relief sought by the respondent herein in the main O.P.No.1405 of 2018 is against the Society, by its member. In view of the mandate given under Section 23 of the Act, which mandates that in the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the Society in respect of matter relating to the affairs of the Society, any member of the Society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or may file an application in the District Court. In the instant case, the dispute is neither among the committee nor the members of the Society, but between a member of the Society and the Society itself. Hence, the Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018. The Court below ought to have rejected the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and reject the main petition, i.e., O.P.No.1405 of 2018. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the following decisions: 1. G.Bala Subrahmanyam and another Vs. The Court below ought to have rejected the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and reject the main petition, i.e., O.P.No.1405 of 2018. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied on the following decisions: 1. G.Bala Subrahmanyam and another Vs. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others, 2014 (2) ALD 101 2. M.S.Madhava Rao and others Vs. D.V.K.Surya Rao, Member of Pithapuram Co-operative Bank, Pithapuram and others, AIR 1954 Madras 103 3. Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange, (2017) 5 SCC 623 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner would contend that the subject dispute falls well within the scope and ambit of Section 23 of the Act. The Court below has jurisdiction to entertain the subject O.P. filed by the respondent herein. The Court below rightly dismissed the subject interlocutory application. There is nothing to interfere with the same and ultimately prayed to sustain the order under challenge and dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had relied upon the following decisions: 1. Andhra Evangelical Luthern Church, Guntur and others Vs. B.Syamsundar and others, 2003 (2) ALD 191 2. Ganta Jermaiah Vs. V.Paul Himamsu and others, 2008 (2) ALD 464 3. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Memorial Educational Society rep. by its General Secretary-cum- Correspondent Vs. District Registrar of Societies, Nellore and others, 2007 (6) ALT 16 4. Margadarshini Educational Society Vs. P.Subhashan and another, 2009 (3) ALD 655 5. S.M.Kantha Raju Vs. Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar, 2007 (1) ALT 643 6. The A.P.Football Association and others Vs. Kurnool District Football Association, AIR 1982 AP 97 6. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in this revision is as follows: “Whether the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, is maintainable? POINT:- 7. Kurnool District Football Association, AIR 1982 AP 97 6. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in this revision is as follows: “Whether the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, is maintainable? POINT:- 7. Admittedly, the respondent herein filed the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 before the Court below against the petitioner No.1 herein/M/s. DRF Employees Welfare Society and petitioner No.2/Secretarty of the said Society and petitioner No.3/President of the said Society, under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, seeking the following reliefs: (a) To declare the Development Agreement-cum- Irrevocable GPA bearing document No.1198/2018, dated 24.01.2018 as illegal, without any legal sanctity and liable to be cancelled, being viod-abinitio and not valid in the eyes of law; (b) To direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to register the allotted Plot No.16, admeasuring 1000 square yards on the name of the petitioner forthwith, in the Layout of 125 plots and register the plots allotted in the names of individual members meant for the 125 members of the society; (c) To declare that the MC of the respondent No.1 Society did not discharge its duties effectively in the best interest of the members of the respondent No.1 Society and indulged in Financial mismanagement, apart from not managing the affairs of the society diligently, in the interest of the members of the society; (d) To direct the respondents 1 & 2 to cancel the agreement between the Society and Milestone Developments Private Limited and also cancel the Exchange of 1000 square yards of Society land between Society and Murali Reddy and also initiate disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the concerned office bearers of MC Members – Mr. Srirami Reddy, Narayan Reddy and Dr.Venkateswarlu for intentionally causing rupees 4 four crores of loss and damage to the respondent No.1 Society and its members; (e) To award costs of petition and also pay for damages towards the mental agony and torture caused to the petitioner; (f) To grant any other relief’s to which the petitioner may be entitled to; and (g) To pass such other order or further orders as re deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the case. 8. 8. Here, it is appropriate to extract Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, which reads as under : 23. Disputes regarding management – In the event of any disputes arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall, after necessary inquiry, pass such order as it may deem fit. 9. A plain reading of the above referred Section 23 of the Act, makes it clear that in the event of any disputes arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall, after necessary inquiry, pass such order as it may deem fit. 10. Be it noted that it is the constitutional obligation and duty of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Courts or Tribunals subordinate to this Court. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice, such as, when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction, though available, is being exercised in a manner, which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. 11. For application of Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, two requisites must be fulfilled. The first is, it must be a dispute among the Committee or the members of the society, and secondly, the dispute must be in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society. According to Cambridge Dictionary, the word ‘among’ means “happening or being included as part of a group of people or things” or “in the middle of or surrounded by other things”. According to Cambridge Dictionary, the word ‘among’ means “happening or being included as part of a group of people or things” or “in the middle of or surrounded by other things”. It is settled law that where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation, other than the literal rule. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. Where the legislative intent is clear from the language, the Court should give effect to it and where the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to them. As per Section 23 of the Act, the disputes arising among the “committee”, which is defined to mean a body of the persons to whom the management of the society is entrusted by its bye-laws or the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, is required to be resolved under the provisions of either the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or by filing an application before the District Court concerned. Therefore, in my view, the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain the disputes which would fall well within the ambit and scope of Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, is, by a necessary implication, barred. In the instant case, the respondent herein is admittedly a member of the petitioner No.1/Society and he filed the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 directly against the Society arraying it as petitioner No.1 and also against its Secretary (Petitioner No.2) and its President (Petitioner No.3), in their individual capacity. The dispute is neither among the “committee” or the “members” of the society, but a member of the society is seeking substantial reliefs indicated supra against the Society itself by arraying it as a party to the petition. Therefore, in view of the nature of the petition filed before the District Court, since the dispute is in between a Member of the Society and the Society, it does not fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act. Furthermore, the petition of this nature is not barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, in view of the nature of the petition filed before the District Court, since the dispute is in between a Member of the Society and the Society, it does not fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Act. Furthermore, the petition of this nature is not barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court below, while dealing with the subject matter of the subject interlocutory application, had recorded a finding that since the respondent herein is a member of the petitioner No.1 Society and is aggrieved with the acts of the petitioner No.1 Society prima facie amounts to a dispute between a member of the society with the society, the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018 is maintainable under Section 23 of the Act. The said finding is erroneous. In view of the nature of the relief sought and the allegations in the subject O.P.No.1405 of 2018, the subject O.P. is not maintainable under Section 23 of the Act. By entertaining the subject Original Petition, the Court below has assumed jurisdiction, which it does not have. The order under challenge is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent herein had relied on certain citations mentioned supra. I have perused the said citations. In the instant case, the specific contention of the petitioners is that in view of the mandate given under Section 23 of the Act, a suit filed by a member of the Society against the Society is not maintainable. The facts and circumstances of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents do not relate to the maintainability of the petition filed by a member of the Society, against the Society. Such questions have not been decided in the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore, the decisions relied by the respondent herein are distinguishable on the ground of maintainability of the Original Petition under Section 23 of the Act. 13. Accordingly, the order, dated 25.10.2018, passed in I.A.No.1183 of 2018 in O.P.No.1405 of 2018, by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is set aside. Consequently, the petition in O.P.No.1405 of 2018 stands rejected, as not maintainable under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. 14. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the petition in O.P.No.1405 of 2018 stands rejected, as not maintainable under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. 14. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this CRP, shall stand closed.