Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
NADAR MAHAJAN SANGAM S. VELAICHAMYNADAR KALLOORI & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DISTRICT REGISTRAR (SOCIETIES & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, made on
January 9, 1997 in CMA No. 843/96 and WP Nos. 9771 and
12007/96.
N.M.S.S Vellaichamy Nadar College was established by
Nadar Mahajan Sangam in the year 1965 and election to the
Society which runs the college, is the bone of the
contention. Untrammeled by procedural formats and its
ramifications in the process of election, the heart of the
matter is good management of the college. Who is entitled to
run the institution the college. Who is entitled to run the
institution and administer property of the said institution
is the crux of the question. It is not in dispute that
though the term of the previous Society Committee expired on
March 31, 1966, elections could not be held for one reason
or the other. As a consequence, at the pain of the
entrustment of the management to the third agency, elections
came to be held on June 9, 1996, which proved to be an
abortive attempt. Consequent thereon, a complaint was made
to the Registrar in Form No.7 on June 12, 1996. An enquiry
appears to have been held by the Registrar which failed in
the process from legal perspectives but the report was
submitted on June 19, 1996. In the meanwhile, OS No. 417/96
was filed for perpetual injunction. An interim mandatory
injunction was issued in I.A. No.292/96 directing the
District Registrar appointed under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act, 1975 (for short, the ‘Act’) to find out
factual position and then to submit the report. In the
meanwhile, writ petitions came to be filed. Ultimately, the
Division Bench came to the conclusion that the learned trial
Judge had abdicated his functioning as an adjudicatory
authority; he should have recorded the evidence and the
findings by himself. Instead, he directed the Registrar to
conduct an enquiry and, thereby, it is a case of abdication
of judicial functioning. Accordingly, the impugned order was
passed.
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
With a view to shorten the litigation, the appropriate
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
course would be as under:
The civil Court is directed to appoint an Advocate as a
Commissioner. The Advocate-Commissioner would take all the
members of the Society existing as on May 14, 1996 as valid
members. He should conduct the elections afresh in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the bye-laws
of the Society. Till the elections are held, the Principal
shall continue to hold charge of the management of the
institution and will act as Receiver of the Court under
Order XL, Rule 1, CPC. He shall be answerable to the Court.
On receipt of the report from the Advocate-Commissioner, the
civil Court shall pass appropriate orders in the light of
the report thus submitted and dispose of the suit
accordingly. The expenditure incurred and fees of the
Advocate-Commissioner should be as determined by the civil
Court. Elections are directed to be conducted within a
period of six weeks from the date of the appointment of the
Advocate-Commissioner by the trial Court. The trial Court is
directed to appoint the Commissioner within two weeks from
the date of the receipt of the order. The trial Court is
directed to dispose of the suit, after the election report
is submitted, within three months thereafter. The fee of the
Advocate-Commissioner should be determined by the trial
Court. The same shall be born by the successful party.
Initially, the same may be paid by the Principal from the
College funds and later recovered by the College from the
successful party to the suit.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.