# C/M Shrimat Paramhans Vidya Pracharini Sabha & Ors v. Deputy Registrar Firms Socities & Chits & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 844
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019
- **Case number:** Single No. 3270 of 2014
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-shrimat-paramhans-vidya-pracharini-sabha-ors-v-deputy-registrar-firms-44837
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A. Service law - Societies Registration
Act,1860- Section 4,4-B, 25(1),25(2) -
The membership list approved by the
Deputy Registrar for holding of elections
and a direction being given thereafter
under purported exercise under Section
25(2) of the Socities Registration Act,
are without any basis-Such an order
passed by the Deputy Registrar in
exercise of power u/s 4-B as well as u/s
25(2) of the Act cannot be upheld-if the
list of members was to be approved,
though there was a dispute regarding
the membership raised by petitioner,
then
the
Agenda
Register,
the
Membership fee book and the Bank
Passbook of the Society should have
been examined. (Para 34 to 42)

Writ petition allowed (E-6)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conjunctive thereby requiring the entire
paragraph to be seen as a whole. As such,
it is submitted that no separate plea of
lack of jurisdiction of court concerned to
entertain the suit was taken and the only
ground for lack of jurisdiction pertained
to undervaluation of suit, which having
become final was not required to be
reopened by framing of additional issue.

36. A perusal of application filed
under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code for
framing of additional issues indicates
complete lack of pleading regarding
requirement of framing of additional
issue. The only ground taken is that since
in paragraph 42 of written statement, an
averment has been made that the court
lacks
jurisdiction,
therefore,
such
additional issue is required to be framed.

37. A perusal of impugned order
dated 25.10.2011 clearly indicates that
application for framing of additional
issues has been rejected primarily on
account of fact that neither any specific
pleading nor averment has been made as
to
why
the
court
lacks
inherent
jurisdiction to hear the suit. However,
trial court has also granted liberty to
defendant/lessee to raise such ground in
future in case appropriate pleadings are
made.

38. Order XIV Rule 5 of the
Code grants absolute discretion to court
concerned to amend or frame additional
issues on such terms as it thinks fit and all
such amendments or additional issues as
may be necessary for determining matters
in controversy between parties.

39. Although said provisions clearly
indicate discretion of court concerned
regarding framing of additional issues but
at the same time such additional issues
cannot be framed on whims and fancies
of a party concerned without even laying
bare foundation for framing of such
additional issues particularly when once
issues have already been framed and
evidence has started.

40. In the present case, it can be
seen from a perusal of application for
framing of additional issues that even
bare minimum foundation has not been
laid for framing of additional issues
regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction of
court to entertain the suit. Even otherwise
trial court has already granted liberty to
defendant/lessee
to
file
appropriate
application in future for framing of
additional issues in case grounds for same
have been laid.

41. In view of aforesaid liberty
already granted by trial court and also in
view
of
fact
that
application
for
amendment of written statement has been
allowed, petition is disposed of in terms
of the order of trial court granting liberty
to
petitioner/defendant-lessee
to
file
appropriate application for framing of
additional issues in light of amendment
being allowed to written statement.
----------
(2019)11ILR A844

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 178 of 2014 alongwith Misc.
Single No. 3270 of 2014

C/M
Shrimat
Paramhans
Vidya
Prachariani Sabha & Ors. ...Petitioners

Versus
3 All. C/M Shrimat Paramhans Vidya Pracharini Sabha & Ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar Firms Socities & Chits & Anr. 845
Deputy Registrar Firms Societies & Chits
& Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Sri
Kailash Chandra, Sri Vikesh Ram Tripathi

A. Service law - Societies Registration
Act,1860- Section 4,4-B, 25(1),25(2) -
The membership list approved by the
Deputy Registrar for holding of elections
and a direction being given thereafter
under purported exercise under Section
25(2) of the Socities Registration Act,
are without any basis-Such an order
passed by the Deputy Registrar in
exercise of power u/s 4-B as well as u/s
25(2) of the Act cannot be upheld-if the
list of members was to be approved,
though there was a dispute regarding
the membership raised by petitioner,
then
the
Agenda
Register,
the
Membership fee book and the Bank
Passbook of the Society should have
been examined. (Para 34 to 42)

Writ petition allowed (E-6)

List of cases cited:-

1. Vijay Narain Singh Vs. Registrar,Firms,
Socities and Chits Registration,U.P., Lucknow
and Ors, 1981 UPLBEC 308

2. Committee of Management and Ors Vs. Zila
Basic Shiksha Adhikari and Ors,1987 UPLBEC
333

3. Urwa Bazar Educational Society, Urwa
Bazar,Gorakhpur
and
Anr.
Vs.
Assistant
Registrar,Firms, Socities and Units,Division
Grorakhpur and Ors,1988 UPLBEC 515

4. All India Council and Anr Vs. Assistant
Registrar, Firms,Socities and Chits,Varanasi
Region, Varanasi and Anr. AIR 1988 All 236

5. Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti,Junior High
School,Sikandara,District Kanpur Dehat and
Anr Vs. Registrar, Firms,Socities and Chits,U.P.,
Lucknow and Ors, 2010 (7) ADJ 643 (DB)

6. Committee of Management,Anjuman Kherul
Almin Allahganj and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and
Ors,2014 (1) ADJ 44 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners.

2. This matter was taken up
yesterday as it was listed in the cause list.

3. Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned
counsel for the petitioners had argued at
length on the illegality and arbitrariness
of the order dated 21.12.2013 passed by
the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Faizabad (for short 'the Deputy
Registrar'). Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi,
was not present yesterday. The matter was
posted in the additional cause list and has
been taken up today.

4. Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi has
appeared today and stated that he has no
instructions as of now from his client, as
according to his client, atleast two
elections have been held after the
impugned order was passed, which later
elections, have not been challenged and
the writ petition has become infructuous.

5. Sri Sanjay Mishra, on the other
hand, has pointed out that if two elections
allegedly have been held by the Sri
Kundesh Shukla, whose Committee was
wrongly recognized by the impugned
order passed by the Deputy Registrar,
such elections were based on the
impugned order and if the impugned
order is set aside by this Court,
automatically the subsequent elections
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would also fall to the ground. If the
foundation
goes,
the
whole
super
structure
based
thereupon
is
also
demolished.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has also pointed out that
although there was no interim order in
this Writ Petition No.178 (MS) of 2014,
in a subsequent Writ Petition No.3270
(MS) of 2014 (which is listed along with
the main matter today), the petitioners
had challenged the notice of election to be
held on the basis of the list of 72
members finalized by the impugned order
dated 21.12.2013. This Court had passed
an order that the result of the election held
shall be subject to final decision in these
writ petitions.

7. Sri Sanjay Mishra has pointed out
that
Shrimat
Paramhans
Vidya
Prachariani Sabha, Uttar Gaon, Amethi is
a registered Society, running a Junior
High School by the same name i.e.
Shrimat Paramhans Junior High School,
Uttar
Gaon,
Amethi.
The
initial
registration of the Society on 24.1.1972
continued to be renewed under the
undisputed Managership of Sri Kamlesh
Narain Shukla. The last such renewal was
made on 10.10.2005 for a period of five
years. The undisputed election of the
Committee of Management was held on
6.12.2009 and 21 members of the
Executive Committee were elected. Sri
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, the petitioner
no.1 was elected as President, Sri
Kamlesh Narain Shukla was elected as
Manager and petitioner no.2 Ram Pher
Gautam was elected as Secretary of the
Society. On 31.12.2010, the then Manager
applied for renewal of the Society and
deposited the renewal fee along with
year-wise
list
of
the
Managing
Committee, the Proceedings Register etc.
and the original copy of the Registration
Certificate and the list of General Body
members. A copy of the letter dated
31.12.2010 has been filed as Annexure-4
to the writ petition.

8. Sri Kamlesh Narain Shukla, the
undisputed Manager died on 8.4.2012.
The Committee of Management met and
elected the petitioner no.3 Ram Murti
Shukla as Manager on 20.5.2012. One
other
member
of
the
Executive
Committee, the Deputy Secretary Smt.
Murli Devi had also died in the meantime
and Smt. Chandrakala was elected as
Deputy Secretary. The papers were
submitted with regard to the elections of
the petitioner no.3 as Manager of the
Society before the Deputy Registrar but
no orders were passed thereon. Also no
orders were passed on the renewal
application submitted by the erstwhile
Manager Sri Kamlesh Narian Shukla.

9. The petitioner no.3 contacted the
office of respondent no.1 and found out
that Sri Kundesh Shukla, had submitted
certain proceedings dated 20.5.2012,
wherein it was shown that Sri Kundesh
Shukla was elected as Manager on the
proposal of Smt. Murli Devi Singh. Smt.
Murli Devi Singh had died on 30.7.2011
and, therefore, she could not have made
any proposal on which the alleged
election of Sri Kundesh Shukla took place
on 20.5.2012.

10. It has been submitted that since
the respondent nos.2 and 3 had filed
proceedings of the same date i.e.
20.5.2012 before the Deputy Registrar,
the Deputy Registrar should have referred
the matter to the Prescribed Authority as
it was a dispute relating to continuance of
3 All. C/M Shrimat Paramhans Vidya Pracharini Sabha & Ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar Firms Socities & Chits & Anr. 847
office bearers and cognizable under Section
25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.
However, this was not done. The petitioners
had submitted their objections to the
proceedings allegedly held on 20.5.2012,
electing Kundesh Shukla as Manager. The
respondent no.1 called for an explanation
along with evidence from the respondent
no.2 by his letter dated 3.10.2012, fixing a
date for hearing. Respondent no.2 did not
submit any explanation in the office of the
Deputy
Registrar. When
the
renewal
certificate was not issued for a long time, the
petitioner no.3 again deposited the renewal
fee along with fine on 19.6.2012. This fact
has been mentioned in Paras-16 and 17 of
the writ petition and has not been specifically
denied by the respondent no.1 in the counter
affidavit filed by him.

11. In the objections submitted by
the petitioner no.3 to the proceedings
dated 20.5.2012 allegedly submitted by
respondent no.2 before the respondent
no.1, it was specifically stated that a
meeting was held on 18.12.2011 under
the Managership of Sri Kamlesh Narain
Shukla, the father of Kundesh Shukla,
wherein it was decided that all ordinary
members, who had failed to deposit their
annual subscription in time, should be
expelled. Sri Kundesh Shukla had not
deposited the membership fee in time and
his name was also deleted from the list of
members of the Society. Sri Kundesh
Shukla was not a member of the Society
after 18.12.2011 and therefore, he could
not have been elected as Manager on the
basis of the alleged proceedings on
20.5.2012.
However,
the
renewal
certificate was issued by the respondent
no.1 to Kundesh Shukla on 28.5.2012.

12. It has also been submitted that
the meeting of the Committee of
Management allegedly held on 20.5.2012
under
the
Chairmanship
of
Sri
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, the then
President, was denied by Sri Rameshwar
Prasad Shukla by means of filing an
affidavit before the respondent no.1 in
this regard. A copy of the said affidavit
has also been filed along with the
rejoinder affidavit by the petitioners
before this Court.

13. Sri Sanjay Mishra has also
pointed out that the alleged order has
been passed on the basis of three
proceedings, the papers regarding which,
were submitted by Sri Kundesh Shukla
and the perusal of the said papers would
show that there was no application of
mind at all by the respondent no.1.

14. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that in Para-12
of the writ petition, the petitioners have
specifically mentioned that respondent
no.2 had submitted papers relating to
three proceedings before the Deputy
Registrar. The certified copies of the three
proceedings have been obtained by the
petitioners from the office of the Deputy
Registrar and these three proceedings
have been filed as Annexures-6, 7 and 8
to the writ petition. A perusal of the same
would show that these three proceedings
were allegedly held on 20.5.2012 and in
these proceedings, Sri Rameshwar Prasad
Shukla was shown as having Chaired the
meeting. Sri Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
filed an affidavit before the respondent
no.1 that he had never attended any
meeting allegedly held on 20.5.2012 in
which, respondent no.2 was elected.

15. It has also been submitted that
Annexures-6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition
would show that they were submitted
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
without application of mind as they also
contained papers relating to Sant Vishal
Shiksha Samiti being chaired by one
President by the name of Murli Prasad
Verma, where a proposal was submitted
by Smt. Murli Devi Singh that the
election of respondent no.2 on the vacant
post of Manager in the meeting held on
28.4.2012 be ratified and the said
ratification was made in the meeting held
on 20.5.2012.

16. It has been submitted that Sant
Vishal Shiksha Samiti, whose name finds
place at Page no.40 of the paper book had
nothing at all to do with the petitionersSociety i.e. Shrimat Paramhans Vidya
Prachariani Sabha, Uttar Gaon, Amethi.
The Deputy Secretary Smt. Murli Devi
Singh had died on 30.7.2011 and
therefore she could not have made any
proposal
on
20.5.2012
regarding
ratification of alleged meeting dated
28.4.2012.

17. Sri Sanjay Mishra has submitted
that the petitioners also filed written
arguments on 7.11.2013 but the Deputy
Registrar in passing the impugned order,
completely ignored the written arguments
so filed.

18. In passing the impugned order,
the respondent no.1 has not indicated any
reason with regard to non issuance of
renewal certificate, although the fee was
deposited by the then Manager on
31.12.2010. The undisputed election of
the Society held on 6.12.2009 had 61
members in the General Body. By the
impugned order, the Deputy Registrar has
recognized a list of 72 members of the
General Body submitted by Sri Kundesh
Shukla. In accepting the list so submitted
by the respondent no.2, the parameters
defined in Section 4-B of the Societies
Registration Act were not looked into at
all. The Proceedings Register, the Agenda
Register, the Fee Book and the Bank
Passbook were not considered at all and
the order has been passed. The respondent
no.1
did
not
verify
whether
any
membership fee was ever deposited by
the new members allegedly inducted by
the respondent no.2 and in passing the
impugned order dated 21.12.2013, the
respondent no.1 has also directed the
District Basic Education Officer to hold
the elections on the basis of the said 72
members' list submitted by respondent
no.2.

19. In the counter affidavit filed by
respondent no.1, the Deputy Registrar,
referred to, by the learned Standing
Counsel Sri Anil Chaubey in reply to the
submissions made by Sri Sanjay Mishra,
has referred to the registration of Society
initially made on 8.9.1972 and the
amendment of the bye-laws approved
thereafter and a dispute relating to the
election of office bearers of two different
Committees of Management referred to
the Prescribed Authority under Section
25(1) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority
by its order dated 1.9.1985 had validated
the election proceedings dated 20.3.1985
relating to the election of the then
Manager Sri Kamlesh Narain Shukla of
the Society. Sri Kamlesh Narain Shukla
continued to remain as Manager of the
Society till his death on 8.4.2012.

20. The respondent no.1 further
refers to the election of Sri Kundesh
Shukla, respondent no.2 for the remaining
term of the Committee of Management in
the meeting convened on 28.4.2012. The
respondent no.2 thereafter moved an
application on 28.5.2012 for renewal of
3 All. C/M Shrimat Paramhans Vidya Pracharini Sabha & Ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar Firms Socities & Chits & Anr. 849
the new Committee of Management.
Before the orders could be passed on such
application, Ram Murti Shukla, petitioner
no.3 moved an application on 19.6.2012
before respondent no.1, annexing the list
of members, who had not deposited their
annual
membership
fee
and
had,
therefore,
been
removed
and
new
members were inducted and prayed for
renewal of the Society, claiming himself
to be the Manager of the Society.

21. In the objections filed by
petitioner no.3, he had stated that the
proceedings submitted by respondent no.2
were forged and illegal. Regarding such
proceedings being submitted, objections
were also filed by the petitioner no.3 on
16.8.2012. Office of respondent no.1
issued notices thereafter. The respondent
no.1 further stated that the last election
was conducted on 6.12.2009 and the next
elections should have been conducted on
or before 5.12.2012. They were not
conducted on 5.12.2012 and hence, the
Society
had
become
time
barred.
Therefore, by the order dated 21.12.2013,
the respondent no.1 has accepted the list
of 72 members of the General Body
submitted by the respondent no.2, and
authorized the District Basic Education
Officer, Amethi to conduct the election of
the
time
barred
Committee
of
Management of the Society in question.
Thereafter, the District Basic Education
Officer, Amethi had issued agenda on
3.6.2014.

22. In the counter affidavit filed by
Sri
Kundesh
Shukla,
it
has
been
submitted that after the death of the
undisputed Manager Sri Kamlesh Narain
Shukla on 8.4.2012, a General Body
meeting was held on 28.4.2012 in which,
he had been elected as Manager for the
remaining period. Thereafter the private
respondent applied for renewal of the
Society and submitted the renewal fee on
28.5.2012 and the Society had been
renewed by respondent no.1 on 30.5.2012
w.e.f. 10.10.2010 for a period of five
years. The petitioner no.3 after renewal of
the Society and registration of list of
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Society, alleging himself to be the
Manager, submitted documents and fee
along with a forged list of members of the
Committee on the basis of the alleged
proceedings
dated
20.5.2012.
After
notices were issued and matter was heard,
the respondent no.1 has passed an
appropriate order, recognizing the list of
72 members of the General Body
submitted by the private respondent. The
District Basic Education Officer, Amethi
in
compliance
of
the order
dated
21.12.2013, has passed an order dated
10.1.2014, fixing the date for election of
time barred Committee of Management
on 27.1.2014, which was later shifted to
16.6.2014. The elections were held by the
General Body of which, 39 members
were present out of 72 members and the
proceedings have been submitted before
the respondent no.1 on 30.6.2014 for his
recognition along with the report of the
District Basic Education Officer, Amethi.
The impugned order dated 21.12.2013 has
been implemented and the election of the
Committee of Management of the Society
has been held, therefore, the writ petition
has become infructuous and is liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone.

23. This Court having heard the
learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Standing Counsel and also having
perused the counter affidavit filed by
respondent no.2, has gone through the
impugned order dated 21.12.2013. From a
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
perusal of the same, it is apparent that the
said order was passed on the proceedings
initiated on objections filed by the
petitioners to the renewal certificate being
granted to respondent no.2. The Deputy
Registrar has mentioned in his order that
after the death of undisputed Manager Sri
Kamlesh Narain Shukla on 8.4.2012, the
General Body of the Society in its
meeting dated 28.4.2012 had elected the
respondent no.2 as Manager for the
remaining term. These proceedings were
ratified by the Committee of Management
on 20.5.2012. One Hare Lal Mishra was
also elected in a vacant post on death of
another member of the Committee of
Management. The renewal proceedings
were submitted on 28.5.2012 by Sri
Kundesh Shukla and renewal certificate
was
granted
on
30.5.2012
w.e.f.
10.10.2010 for a period of five years.
After the renewal certificate was granted,
the petitioner no.3 had filed objections on
19.6.2012. The Annexures filed along
with
these
objections
have
been
mentioned in detail in the order dated
21.12.2013. Mention has also been made
of objections filed by petitioner no.3
again on 16.8.2012, challenging the list of
Committee of Management for the years
2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and
2012-13 as submitted by Sri Kundesh
Shukla. It was also submitted that
respondent no.2 was not a member of the
Society at all. The affidavits filed by
atleast three members including Sri
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, the then
President of the Society have also been
mentioned by the Deputy Registrar.
Mention has also been made of the list of
72 members submitted by the petitioner
no.3 but the Deputy Registrar has found
that the respondent no.2 had submitted
the affidavits of 27 members out of 61
original General Body members in his
favour on 30.8.2013, where the members
had stated that the petitioner no.3 had
submitted forged proceedings relating to
meeting held on 28.4.2012, 20.5.2012 and
3.12.2012.

24. The Deputy Registrar has
accepted that the renewal certificate was
issued on 30.5.2012 to the respondent
no.2 for the Society in question. He has
disbelieved the papers submitted by
petitioner no.3 on the basis of documents
available in his record maintained at the
office. He has disbelieved the contention
of petitioner no.3 that Kundesh Shukla
had been removed from the membership
of the Society for non-payment of
membership fee on the ground that in the
list
of
Committee
of
Management
submitted for the years 2007-08, 2008-09
and 2009-10 in the office, the name of
Kundesh Shukla was mentioned at Serial
no.16 as member of the Committee of
Management
and
as
per
Bye-law
no.5(2)(B) of the Society, only life
member of the Society could have been
made a member of the Committee of
Management. He has, therefore, found
that respondent no.2 was a life member
and he could not have been removed as
alleged by petitioner no.3 for non
payment of annual subscription.

25. The question before this Court in
these writ petitions relates to the power of
the Registrar under Section 3A of the
Societies Registration Act read with
Sections 4(1) and 4(2) and Sections 4A
and 4B of the Act. Under Section 3A of
the Act, the Registrar has the power to
grant renewal of registration of a Society.
It provides that the certification of
registration shall remain in force for a
period of five years from the date of its
issue.
3 All. C/M Shrimat Paramhans Vidya Pracharini Sabha & Ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar Firms Socities & Chits & Anr. 851

26. In this case, undusputedly Sri
Kamlesh
Narain
Shukla
being
the
Manager, was being granted such renewal
certificates and the last such renewal
certificate being due to expire on
10.10.2010, the then undisputed Manager
Sri Kamlesh Narain Shukla had submitted
a renewal application and deposited the
renewal fee along with annual list of
Committee of Management and all
relevant
papers
on
31.12.2010.
Sri
Kamlesh Narain Shukla died on 8.4.2012.
Sri
Kundesh
Shukla
submitted
the
proceedings dated 20.5.2012, alleging
that he had been elected at a meeting of
the General Body of the members on
28.4.2012 and the said election was
ratified by the Committee of Management
in its meeting dated 20.5.2012. The
Deputy Registrar issued the renewal
certificate on 30.5.2012. When
the
petitioners came to know, the petitioner
no.3 filed his objections on 19.6.2012 on
which, notices were issued.

27. In the proceedings dated
20.5.2012, it was alleged that they were
under
the
Chairmanship
of
Sri
Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, the President
of the Society. However, Sri Rameshwar
Prasad Shukla, who is petitioner no.1
before this Court, filed an affidavit before
the Deputy Registrar, saying that no
elections were held on 28.4.2012 and no
proceedings were also held on 20.5.2012.
As such, a dispute was raised regarding
the election of Sri Kundesh Shukla and
also the election of other members of the
Committee
of
Management
in
the
vacancy created on the death of Smt.
Murli Devi Singh. It was a dispute
relating to continuance of office bearers,
which could only have been referred to,
under Section 25(1) of the Act to the
Prescribed Authority for a decision.

28. Simultaneously, objections were
also filed by the petitioner no.3 along
with papers relating to the proceedings
allegedly held on various dates, electing
him as Manager of the Society and
removing Sri Kundesh Shukla as member
of the Society. With regard to continuance
of membership of Sri Kundesh Shukla, no
doubt the Deputy Registrar had power
under Section 4 of the Act.

29. The relevant extracts of Section
4 of the Societies Registration Act is
being quoted hereinbelow:

"4. Annual list of, managing
body to be filed.-(1) Once in every year,
on
or
before
the
fourteenth
day
succeeding the day on which, according
to the rules of the Society, the annual
general meeting of the society is held, or,
if the rules do not provide for an annual
general meeting, in the month of January,
a list shall be filed with the Registrar of
Joint-Stock Campanies, of the names,
addresses
and
occupations
of
the
governors, council, directors, committee,
or other governing body then entrusted
with the management of the affairs of the
society.

(2) Together with list mentioned
in sub-section (1) there shall be sent to
the Registrar a copy of the memorandum
of association including any alteration,
extension or abridgement of purposes
made under Section 12, and of the rules
of the society corrected up to date and
certified by not less than three of the
members of the said governing body to be
a correct copy and also a copy of the
balance-sheet for the proceeding year of
account.

Provided that if the managing
body is elected after the last submission
of the list, the counter signature of the old
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
members, shall, as far as possible, be
obtained on the list. If the old officebearers do not counter-sign the list, the
Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a
public notice or notice to such persons as
he thinks fit inviting objections within a
specified period and shall decide all
objections received within the said
period."

30. Under the amendment to the Act
by the State Legislature, Section 4-B has
also been added, in which, it has been
provided thus:

"4-B. (1) At the time of
registration/renewal of a society, list of
members of General Body of that society
shall
be
filed
with
the
Registrar
mentioning the name, father's name,
address and occupation of the members.
The
Registrar
shall
examine
the
correctness of the list of members of the
General Body of such society on the basis
of the register of members of the General
Body and minutes book thereof, cash
book, receipt book of membership fee and
Bank pass book of the society.

(2) If there is any change in the
list of members of the General Body of the
society referred to in sub-section (1), on
account
of
induction,
removal,
resignation or death of any member, a
modified list of members of General Body,
shall be filed with the Registrar, within
one month from the date of change.

(3) The list of members of the
General Body to be filed with Registrar
under this section shall be signed by two
office bearers and two executive members
of the society."

31.

It
is
apparent
that
the
observations
made
by
the
Deputy
Registrar regarding continuance of Sri
Kundesh Shukla as member of the
Society and the proceedings relating to
his removal allegedly held on 18.12.2011
being suspect, cannot be said to be
without
jurisdiction.
The
Deputy
Registrar has considered the Bye-laws of
the Society, wherein it was specifically
provided that only a life member of the
General Body could be a member of the
Committee of Management. Sri Kundesh
Shukla has been shown by the erstwhile
member of the Society Sri Kamlesh
Narain
Shukla
as
member
of
the
Committee of Management in the list for
the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Hence, the papers submitted by the
petitioner no.3 relating to the alleged
meeting held on 18.3.2011, removing Sri
Kundesh Shukla from the membership of
the General Body due to non payment of
annual subscription, were rightly rejected
by the Deputy Registrar.

32. The Deputy Registrar having
accepted the respondent no.2 as being a
valid member of the General Body and,
therefore, being elected as member of the
Committee of Management for the years
2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, there was
no good ground to accept the papers
submitted by petitioner no.3 relating to
the alleged meeting held on 18.3.2011,
removing the respondent no.2 as member
of the General Body due to non payment
of annual subscription.

33. However, the Deputy Registrar
should have stayed his hands and should
not have proceeded further in the matter
by accepting the list submitted by Sri
Kundesh Shukla and at the same time,
observing that the elections of the Society
having not been held in time, the
Committee of Management of the Society
had become time barred and, therefore, he
3 All. C/M Shrimat Paramhans Vidya Pracharini Sabha & Ors. Vs. Deputy Registrar Firms Socities & Chits & Anr. 853
had derived the power as Deputy
Registrar to proceed under Section 25(2)
of the Act.

34. It has been held by several
Division Benches of this Court that the
Registrar or the Deputy Registrar has no
jurisdiction to hear and decide any dispute
in respect of an election or continuance in
office by the officer bearers of the
Society. The first such decision, which
comes to mind is that of Vijay Narain
Singh vs. Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits Registration, U.P., Lucknow and
others, 1981 UPLBEC 308. The said
decision of this Court was followed by
later
Division
Bench
judgments
in
Committee of Management and others
vs. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari and
others, 1987 UPLBEC 333; Urwa Bazar
Educational
Society,
Urwa
Bazar,
Gorakhpur and another vs. Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Units,
Division Gorakhpur and others, 1988
UPLBEC 515; All India Council and
another vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region,
Varanasi and another, AIR 1988 All 236;
Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior
High School, Sikandra, District Kanpur
Dehat and another vs. Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow and
others, 2010 (7) ADJ 643 (DB) and
Committee of Management, Anjuman
Kherul Almin Allahganj and another vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2014 (1) ADJ
44 (DB).

35. In the case of All India Council
(supra), this Court had observed in Para-7
as under:

"7. It will, therefore, be seen
that insofar as disputes or doubts in
respect of the election or continuance in
office of the office-bearers of a society
registered
in
Uttar
Pradesh
are
concerned, the Legislature has created a
specific forum and laid down an
exhaustive procedure for determination
of the same under S.25. There is no
other provision, express or otherwise,
providing for determination of such
disputes specifically. It is settled law that
where, as here, the Legislature creates a
specific forum and lays an exhaustive
procedure
for
determination
of
a
particular class of disputes in respect of
matters covered by the stature, such
disputes can be determined only in that
forum and in the manner prescribed
thereunder
and
not
otherwise.
If,
therefore, a dispute is raised with regard
to the election or continuance in office
of an office-bearer of a society registered
in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be
decided only by the Prescribed Authority
under S. 25 (1) and not by the Registrar,
save, of course, to the decision of the
Prescribed Authority being subject to the
result of a civil suit."

36. The Deputy Registrar, however,
in this case, rejected the objections raised
by the petitioners regarding the alleged
election of Sri Kundesh Shukla as
Manager of the Society on 28.4.2012 and
ratification of the said decision of the
General Body of the Committee of
Management on 20.5.2012 and accepted
the list of 72 members of the General
Body submitted by Sri Kundesh Shukla.

37. The membership list approved
by the Deputy Registrar for holding of
elections and a direction being given
thereafter under purported exercise under
Section
25(2)
of
the
Societies
Registration Act, are without any basis. A
direction has been issued for holding of
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
elections by the District Basic Education
Officer, Amethi on the basis of list
submitted by Sri Kundesh Shukla dated
22.6.2012.

38. Such an order passed by the
Deputy Registrar in exercise of power
under Section 4-B as well as under
Section 25(2) of the Act cannot be upheld.
If the list of members was to be approved,
though there was a dispute regarding the
membership raised by petitioner no.3,
then the Agenda Register, the Proceedings
Register, the Membership fee book and
the Bank Passbook of the Society should
have been examined.

39. Undisputedly, there were only
61 members of the General Body, who
had participated in the election held on
6.12.2009. It is not clear as to why the
Deputy Registrar discarded the original
list of 61 members and approved the list
submitted
by
respondent
no.2
and
directed for holding of election on the
basis thereof.

40. Also, a genuine dispute relating
to the continuance of office bearers had
been raised and the dispute should have
been referred under Section 25(1) of the
Act to the Prescribed Authority. The same
was not done.

41. The order impugned dated
21.12.2013, therefore, cannot be sustained
and is set aside.

42. The Writ Petition No.178 (MS)
of 2014 stands allowed.

43. Writ Petition No.3270 (MS) of
2014 has been filed challenging the order
dated 03.06.2014 which is in the form of
Agenda circulated for holding of elections
by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Amethi, in
pursuance of the order dated 21.12.2013
passed by the Dy. Registrar challenged in
Writ Petition No.178 (MS) of 2014. Since
Writ Petition No. 178 (MS) of 2014 has
been allowed and the order dated
21.12.2013 has been set aside by this
Court, the Writ Petition No.3270 (MS) of
2014 also deserves to be allowed.

44. It has been informed by the
counsel for the parties that at least one
election has been held in pursuance of the
order dated 03.06.2014 but this Court
finds that while entertaining the writ
petition and connecting it with Writ
Petition No.178 (MS) of 2014, this Court
had passed an order that the result of the
election shall be subject to the final result
of the writ petition. The result of the
elections being made subject to the
decision in the aforesaid two writ
petitions by this Court, by means of an
interim order, the elections held thereafter
cannot be set to be legally held as once
the
foundation
goes
superstructure
automatically falls. The order impugned
dated 03.06.2014 is set aside.

45. Since this Court has set aside the
order passed by the Dy. Registrar on
21.12.2013 and allowed the Writ Petition
No.3270 (MS) of 2014, it cannot be said
that the Committee of Management
headed by the opposite party no.2 Mr.
Kundesh Shukla is regularly elected
Committee of Management. The Dy.
Registrar is directed to find out as to how
many members out of 61 members list
which was utilized for holding the
undisputed elections on 06.12.2009 are
present and alive and thereafter issue a
tentative list of members on the basis
thereof, inviting objections from all
concerned. Such exercise be completed
3 All. Bid & Hammer Fine Art Auctioners (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.
855
within a period of three weeks. The
objection should be filed within one
week. While considering objections, the
Dy. Registrar may also examine Agenda
Register,
Proceedings
Register,
Membership Fee Register and Bank
passbook with regard to the members.
The Dy. Registrar shall verify on the basis
of parameters mentioned in Section 4 B
of the Act alone.

46. The Dy. Registrar shall finalize
the list within a further period of two
weeks and circulate the Agenda for
holding the elections of the Society
thereafter within a further period of three
weeks.

47. The entire exercise of holding of
elections shall be completed by the Dy.
Registrar in accordance with the Byelaws of the Society within a maximum
period of three months from the date a
certified copy of the order is produced
before the Authority concerned.

48. For a period of three months or
till the declaration of the result of the
election whichever is earlier, the Society
shall be put under single hand operation
to facilitate the payment of salary of the
teaching and non-teaching staff.

49. Accordingly, Writ Petition
No.3270 (MS) of 2014 is allowed.
----------
(2019)11ILR A855

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Misc. Single No. 2571 of 2016
Bid & Hammer Fine Art Auctioners (P)
Ltd.& Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Chandra Shekhar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Vikas Mishra, Vilas Misra

A. Company Law-Companies Act,1956 -
Service
law
-
agreement
between
company and consultant - termination of
service - complaint against company for
non-payment
of
agreed
amountcomplaint was made under section 406
of IPC,1860-it was held that it is a clear
case of civil dispute for recovery of
money being given the colour of a
criminal proceeding for affecting the
recovery by misusing the provisions of
IPC.

B.
Bare
perusal
of
the
complaint,
treating the same to be a gospel of truth
does not even allege any entrustment of
property or any misappropriation of the
said property and , thus, no ingredients
which are required to attract the rigours
of Section 405 IPC are present in the
complaint and consequently the order
passed by the Magistrate summoning the
petitioners for being tried of any offence
under Section 406 IPC was wholly
unjustified. (Para 11,12,13,14,15,16)

Petition allowed (E-6)

List of cases cited:-

1. Binod Kumar and Ors Vs. State of Bih. And
Anr, 2014(8) Supreme 112

2. Sajal Garg & another Vs. State of U.P. And
Anr,2012(7) ADJ 529

3. Prof. R.K. Vijayasarthy & Anr. Vs. Sudha
Seetharam & Anr.

4. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd.
And Ors., (2206) 6 SCC 736