Karnataka HC: Registrar’s Section 25 inquiry cannot decide private disputes between club members

The petitioner, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (“KSR Act”), challenged a notice dated 18 December 2025 issued by an Enquiry Officer under Section 25 of the Act.

The notice proposed an enquiry into nine matters concerning the Club, including suspensions and appointments of office-bearers, amendments to the bye-laws, meetings, a new bank account, and the Club’s accounts and administration.

The petitioner contended, among other things, that some matters were already before civil courts.

The Court compared the notice with pending suits, including O.S. No. 8464/2024 and O.S. No. 1854/2026, which raised issues concerning the validity of a Special General Body Meeting, bye-law amendments, and the status of the Honorary Secretary.

The petitioner had earlier challenged the continuation of the enquiry in W.P. No. 31362/2025; the Court noted that the pending suits had not been brought to its attention in that proceeding.

Whether the notice dated 18 December 2025 was validly issued under Section 25 of the KSR Act, or required interference by the Court.

Whether the Section 25 enquiry could determine issues concerning members’ private civil rights, particularly where substantially the same issues were pending before civil courts.

Section 25(1) of the KSR Act authorises the Registrar, on the prescribed application or on his own motion, to enquire into a registered society’s “constitution, working and financial condition”; where acting suo motu, the Registrar must independently apply his mind, and receipt of a complaint does not automatically require an enquiry.

Section 25(2) confers ancillary powers to obtain records and examine persons, but does not empower the Registrar to adjudicate every dispute between members or rival groups.

A genuine enquiry into statutory compliance, records, accounts, financial condition, or financial irregularities may proceed even if related civil proceedings are pending; however, the Registrar must not decide private civil rights or conduct a parallel adjudication of an issue pending before a competent civil court.

No judicial precedent was relied upon in the judgment.

The Court examined the substance of each charge and the records demanded, rather than treating the notice’s labels as determinative.

Charges 1, 3 and 6 substantially overlapped with civil claims concerning the Secretary’s status, the bye-law amendments, and the validity of the Special General Body Meeting; determining those matters in the enquiry would risk parallel adjudication of issues before the civil court.

By contrast, the financial enquiry under Charge 8, and potentially aspects of Charges 2, 4, 5 and 7, could fall within Section 25 if confined to statutory working or financial condition and not used to determine competing rights to office or control of the Club.

The earlier order permitting the enquiry to continue did not preclude reconsideration because the civil suits and their reliefs had not then been disclosed.

It directed the Registrar/Enquiry Officer to issue a fresh notice identifying the matters to be examined and excluding matters requiring adjudication of private civil rights pending before the competent civil court.

The fresh enquiry must remain within Section 25; in particular, it must not determine the validity of the appointment, co-option or continuance of any office-bearer, the Special General Body Meeting of 22 September 2024, the bye-law amendments, or other issues directly pending before the civil court.

The authority may call for records necessary to a properly confined enquiry, without prejudice to the merits of the pending suits.