Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1554 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Nanshibhai S/o Ganeshbhai Mirani
RESPONDENT:
Bhupendra P. Popat & Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/03/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 24675 of 2005)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered
by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court
allowing prayer made by respondent No.1 for certain
directions and directing to have a fresh meeting of Sri
Lohana Mahaparishad (hereinafter referred to as the
’Mahaparishad’).
A brief reference as projected by the appellant to the
factual aspects would suffice.
A suit was filed relating to the function of
Mahaparishad. On the basis of the consent order i.e. in
an appeal from the order No.427/2005 the High Court
directed to have a General Body Meeting containing 23
Agendas including the agenda for holding the election of
President of the Mahaparishad and four trustees. The suit
was accordingly disposed of. A Court Commissioner was
appointed and the agenda notice containing the details of
23 agenda items were circulated to more than 650
members and the meeting was fixed at Ahmedabad on
3.7.2005. The meeting of the Madhyastha Maha Samiti (in
short ’Maha Samiti’) of Mahaparishad was held. On the
request of majority of members, item no.9 pertaining to
the election of four trustees in place of the retiring
trustees and agenda no.22 pertaining to election of the
President was taken up first after first formal agendas.
Shri Jayantilal Govindji Kundalia was elected as a
President and four persons including one T.R. Chitwani
were elected as trustees. It is to be noted that in the
election for the post of President and trustees both Shri
Kundalia and Shri Chitwani were contesters. As noted
earlier Shri Kundalia was elected as President while Shri
Chitwani was elected as a trustee. Respondent no.1 Sri
Bhupendra P. Popat was the Chief Polling Agent of Shri
Chitwani. It is not disputed that considering the paucity
of time the meeting was adjourned for consideration of the
remaining agenda items at the later date. According to
appellant after due notice to all the members the meeting
was held on 4.9.2005 and the remaining items of agenda
were considered and adopted. Respondent no.1 Sri
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Bhupendra P. Popat filed an application making grievance
that the decision could not have been taken at a
subsequent meeting and it was only the earlier Board
which could have taken up the remaining agenda items
and not the newly elected governing body. The appellant
questioned correctness of the acceptability of the stand of
the respondent no.1. It was highlighted that after the new
governing body was elected, the question of the old body
whose term had expired on 31.12.2004 could not have
taken any decision. The High Court accepted that the old
governing body was the only body which could have taken
the decision so far as the remaining items of the agenda
are concerned and, therefore, there was violation of the
specific order as contained in the consent order.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court has clearly fallen into error by holding that it
was the old body which had to take the decision. That
would put the clock back and process of the election of
the new body would be an exercise in futility. In fact,
there was a meeting held on 4.9.2005 where after due
notice to eligible persons, decisions were taken.
Respondent no.1 Sri Bhupendra P. Popat at the behest of
Shri Chitwani who lost presidential election had filed
application in a disposed of case. The High Court had
erroneously entertained the application.
In response, learned counsel for the respondents
held that various vital agenda items were to be
considered. It was only the old governing body which had
taken various resolutions which were to be discussed in
terms of various agenda items and the new governing
body had no role to play so far as these items are
concerned.
We find that the High Court failed to consider two
very relevant aspects. Firstly, the scope of re-opening the
entire matter in the case after passing of the consent
order was required to be considered. Secondly, it has
failed to consider the effect of the decisions/resolutions
taken at the meeting held on 4.9.2005. It is the stand of
the appellant that due notice was given to the
respondents and all eligible members and the resolutions
were adopted after thorough discussion.
We do not think it proper to say anything about the
effect of the resolutions/decisions. It would be
appropriate for the High Court to consider the
maintainability of the application filed by respondent no.1
in the matter and the effect of resolutions taken on
4.9.2005, if it comes to hold that the application was
maintainable. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the
High Court for fresh consideration of the aforesaid two
aspects for which we express no opinion.
Since the matter is of urgency, we request the High
Court to dispose of the matter within three months from
the date of receipt of order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order
as to costs.