Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
NAGRI PRACHARINI SABHA AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VTH ADDl. DISTT. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VARANASIAND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/08/1990
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
MISRA RANGNATH
PUNCHHI, M.M.
CITATION:
1990 SCR (3) 971 1991 SCC Supl. (2) 36
JT 1990 (4) 160 1990 SCALE (2)404
ACT:
Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act No. 21 of 1860 as
applicable to Uttar Pradesh): Sections 23 and 25.
Society--Members--Suit challenging office bearers’ election
and for rendition of accounts--Jurisdiction of Civil
Court--Whether barred.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 9--Civil
Court--Bar of Jurisdiction.
HEADNOTE:
The respondents instituted a civil suit challenging the
election of the office bearers’ of the appellant-Society and
asked for rendition of accounts. The appellant-Society
contested the suit on the ground that in view of Sections 23
and 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 the suit was
barred. The courts below having held that the suit was not
barred, the defendant Society filed appeal in this Court.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature
has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a
suit in the civil court unless its cognizance is either
expressly or impliedly barred. The exclusion of jurisdiction
of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and such
exclusion must be either express or implied. [973A-B]
K.S. Venkataraman & Company v. State of Madras, [1966] 2
S.C.R. 229; Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., [1968] 3
S.C.R. 662; Dhula Bhai and Ors. v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors., [1974] 3 S.C.R. 882; referred.
Raleigh Investment Company Limited v. The Governor
General in Council, [1947] L.R. 74 I.A. 50; cited.
2. The provisions of Section 23 of the Societies Regis-
tration Act, 1860 are confined to audit and have nothing to
do with the relief of rendition of accounts. [976B]
972
3. Section 25 deals with disputes regarding challenge to
the eviction of office-bearers. The maintainability of
dispute within the purview of that Section is hedged with
conditions and unless such requirement is fulfilled, a
statutory dispute would not be maintainable. [976B]
3.1 In the instant case the action in the Civil Court is
by some of the members who perhaps would not satisfy the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
requirement laid down in Section 25. It cannot be said that
Section 25 having provided the pre-conditions on the satis-
faction of which a dispute within the purview of that Sec-
tion would be maintainable before the Registrar takes away
the right of Members of the Society to claim relief other-
wise outside the purview of Section 25 on the basis of their
right to seek remedy for their grievance. It is not the
appellant’s contention that the relief claimed is not one
which would come within the ambit of Section 9 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the bar of Section 25 is not
applicable to the facts of the case, and the conclusion
reached in the Courts below is correct and the suit is
maintainable. [976C-E]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2483 of
1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2. 1982 of the
Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1744
of 1982.
Gobind Mukhoty and U.S. Prasad for the Appellants.
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Ms. Rani Chhabra and M.C. Dhingra for
the Respondents.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Appellant is a Society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 21 of 1860. Five persons of whom some are
respondents before us instituted a suit in the Court of
Civil Judge, Varanasi challenging the election of the Manag-
ing Committee and other elected officers of the appellant
and asked for rendition of accounts. This suit of 1981 is
still pending. We are now concerned with the correctness of
the finding on the preliminary issue as to whether such a
suit is maintainable in the Civil Court. The defendants’
objection to the maintainability is grounded upon the provi-
sions contained in Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration
Act. The Courts below have taken the view that the suit is
not barred. That is why the defendants are here by special
leave.
973
A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has,
independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in
the civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred. The position is well-settled that exclu-
sion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily
inferred and such exclusion must be either expressly or
implied.
Reliance has been placed by Mr. Mukhoty before us on the
ratio of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
K.S. Venkataraman & Company v. State of Madras, [1966] 2
S.C.R. 229 where reference has been made to the Privy Coun-
cil case in Raleigh Investment Company Limited v. The Gover-
nor General in Council. It has been laid down that the Civil
Court’s jurisdiction would be presumed unless the contrary
is indicated. Mr. Mukhoty has also relied upon two other
decisions being Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Others, [1968]
3 S.C.R. 662 and Dhula bhai and Others, v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Another, [ 1974] 3 S.C.R. 882. The legal
position thus seems to be clear and it is not necessary to
quote further authorities.
What is really in dispute is the application of the rule
to the facts of the case. To ascertain whether the suit
would be barred, the effect of the provisions of Sections 23
and 25 of the Registration Act with the U .P. amendments has
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
to be considered. These sections provide:
"23. Audit: (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-
section (2) of Section 4 or of Section 22, where the Regis-
trar is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to
do, he may, by written order, require any society to furnish
its accounts or a copy of a statement of receipts and ex-
penditure for any particular year duly audited by a Char-
tered Accountant:
Provided that the Registrar may, at the request of
society permit it to have such accounts and statement audit-
ed by any other person by him.
(2) If the society fails to furnish the documents referred
to in sub-section (1) within the period specified in the
order or with such extended period as the Registrar may from
time to time allow, the Registrar may cause the accounts of
such society audited for the said year and may recover the
cost of such audit from that society.
(3) If the society neglects or refuses to make its account
or
974
other documents available for audit under sub-section (2)
or, in the opinion of the Registrar, otherwise fails to
provide requisite facilities to have the audit made with due
expedition, the Registrar may proceed to take action under
Section 24.
25. Disputes regarding election of office-bearers:-(1) The
prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the
Registrar or by at least one fourth of the members of a
society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a
summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the elec-
tion or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such
society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it
deems fit:
Provided that the election of an office bearer
shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satis-
fied:-
(a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such
office bearer; or
(b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly
rejected; or
(c) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns
such office-bearer has been materially affected by the
improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper
reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception
of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the
provisions of any rules of the society.
Explanation I.--A person shall be deemed to have commit-
ted a corrupt practice who directly or indirectly, by him-
self or by any other person--
(i) induces, or attempts to induce, by fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector
to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any
candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to
withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at the
election;
(ii) with a view to inducing any elector to give or to
refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to
inducing any
975
person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to
withdraw from being, a candidate at the election, offers or
gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place of
employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage
or profit to any person;
(iii) abets (within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
the doing of any of the acts specified in clause (i) and
(ii);
(iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to
believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested,
will become or will be rendered an object of divine dis-
pleasure or spiritual censure;
(v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or reli-
gion;
(vi) commits such other practice as the Government may
prescribe to be a corrupt practice.
Explanation II--A ’promise of individual advantage or profit
to a person’ includes a promise for the benefit of the
person himself, or of any one in which he is interested.
Explanation III--The State Government may prescribe the
procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in
respect of such elections and make provision in respect of
any other matter relating to such elections for which insuf-
ficient provisions exists in this Act or in the rules of the
society.
(2) Where by an order made under sub-section (1), an
election is set aside or an office bearer is held no longer
entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is
satisfied that any election of office bearers of a society
has not been held within the time specified in the rules of
that society, he may call meeting of the general body of
such society for electing such office-bearer or office-
bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be
conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by
him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the
society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to
such meeting and election with necessary modifications.
(3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under
sub-section no other meeting shall be called for the purpose
of election by any other authority or any person claiming to
be an office-bearer of the society.
976
Explanation--For the purposes of this section, the expres-
sion ’prescribed authority’ means an officer or court autho-
rised in this behalf by the State Government by notification
published in the Official Gazette.
We are of the view that provisions of Section 23 are con-
fined to audit and have nothing to do with the relief of
rendition of accounts. No more is necessary to be said about
that relief. Section 25 deals with disputes regarding chal-
lenge to the eviction of office-bearers. The maintainability
of dispute within the purview of that Section is hedged with
conditions and unless such requirement is fulfilled, a
statutory dispute would not be maintainable. The present
action in the Civil Court is by some of the members who
perhaps would not satisfy the requirements laid down in
Section 25. It cannot be contended that Section 25 having
provided the pre-conditions on the satisfaction of which a
dispute within the purview of that Section would be main-
tainable before the Registrar takes away the right of Mem-
bers of the Society to claim relief otherwise outside the
purview of Section 25 on the basis of their right to seek
remedy for their grievance. It is not the contention of Mr.
Mukhoty that the relief claimed is not one which would come
within the ambit of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure. That being so, we are of the view that the bar of
Section 25 is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Therefore, the conclusion reached in the Courts below is
correct and the suit is maintainable.
We pointed out to Mr. Mukhoty that the relief against
election of office bearers must have become infructuous with
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
the passage of time as the election is annual. It is for the
trial Court now to dispose of the suit taking into consider-
ation the changes in the situations that may be brought
before it. We dismiss the appeal and direct the trial court
to expedite the disposal of the suit. No costs.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
977