# The Executive Board of Methodist Episcopal Church and Anr v. Commissioner Agra and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1182
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-09-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1921 of 2010
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-executive-board-of-methodist-episcopal-church-and-anr-v-commissioner-agra-42684
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Socities Registration Act- Section 12
D(2)-Appeal
against
order-recalling
renewal
certificate-dismissed
as
not
maintainable-appellate
authority
committed great error-order quasheddirection to decide appeal on merit-given
appeal maintainable even order obtained
by playing fraud.

Held: Para-6 & 7

## Text

1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case of A.K. Ray Vs. State of Punjab
reported in 1986(4) SCC 326, Babu
Bargis Vs. Bar Council reported in
1999(3) SCC 422, Diwan Singh Vs.
Rajendra Prasad reported in 2007(1)
Supreme 52 and L. Hridaya Narain Vs.
ITO reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court
33 and Kulsum R. Nadiadwala (supra).

34. The first issue raised in this
petition is thus answered by holding that
if the suit was not properly instituted the
District Judge could not exercise his
jurisdiction under Section 24 (5) of the
Code of Civil Procedure by ignoring the
provision of Order VII Rule 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.

35. The second issue raised in this
petition is answered by holding that the
plaint ought to have been returned under
Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

36. The plaint is therefore directed
to be returned to the plaintiff under Order
VII Rule 10 CPC for being presented
before the Court of Competent pecuniary
jurisdiction.

37. For the reasons above mentioned
the impugned order cannot be sustained
and is liable to be set aside.

38. The impugned order dated
01.10.2012
passed
in
Transfer
Application No.327 of 2012 by the
District Judge, Deoria is set aside.

39. This petition is allowed.

40. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1921 of 2010

The
Executive
Board
of
Methodist
Episcopal Church and Anr ....Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Agra and Ors.Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri T.S. Pandey, Sri A.P. Paul, Sri Brij
Bhushan Paul
Sri Munna Babu, Sri T.C. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri C.M. Rai, Sri Sanjay Srivastava
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Sudeep Harkauli
Sri Udayan Nandan,Sri P.N. Saxena
Socities Registration Act- Section 12
D(2)-Appeal
against
order-recalling
renewal
certificate-dismissed
as
not
maintainable-appellate
authority
committed great error-order quasheddirection to decide appeal on merit-given
appeal maintainable even order obtained
by playing fraud.

Held: Para-6 & 7
6. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision
it is apparently clear that the Registrar has
been given various powers for cancelling
the registration of the Society. Section
12D(1)(c) which was inserted by U.P. Act
No. 11 of 1984 provides that an appeal
would also lie against an order where the
certificate of renewal has been obtained by
misrepresentation or fraud.

7. In the opinion of the Court, the
appeal
of
the
petitioner
was
maintainable and that the appellate
authority committed an error in rejecting
the appeal on the ground that it was not
maintainable.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.B. Paul, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.N.
3 All] The Executive Board of Methodist Episcopal Church and Anr. Vs. Commissioner Agra and Ors. 1183
Saxena, the learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Sanjay Srivastava and
Udayan Nandan, the learned counsel for
respondent no.4, who is the contesting
party.

2. The petitioner no.1 alleges itself
to be the Executive Board of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern
Asia, and petitioner no.2 alleges himself
to be the General Secretary of this Board.
It transpires that the petitioner no.2
moved an application for renewal of the
certificate of the Society and also filed a
list of the names of the office bearers. It
also transpires that the petitioners also
moved an application for amending its
bye-laws. These applications were duly
considered and allowed and the renewal
of certificate along with the list of office
bearers was granted to the petitioners.
When the respondents came to know
about it, they filed a detailed objection
alleging
that
a
fraud
and
misrepresentation had been played by the
petitioners.

3. The Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Agra after considering
the matter allowed the objection of
respondent no.4, and cancelled the renewal
of certificate of the registration of the society
as well as the list of office bearers and the
application for amendment of the bye-laws
on the ground that the petitioners had
obtained the said certificate, etc. by
misrepresentation and fraud.

4. The petitioners being aggrieved
by the said order filed an appeal under
sub-clause (2) of section 12D of the
Societies Registration Act. The said
appeal was rejected by the appellate
authority on the ground that the appeal
was not maintainable in as much as the
appeal only lies against the cancellation of
the registration of the Society. The
petitioners being aggrieved by the said
order have filed the present writ petition.

5. For a proper appreciation of the
factual position, it would be appropriate
to refer to the provisions of Section 12D
of the Act which is extracted hereunder.

12D. Registrar's power to cancel
registration in certain circumstances.-

(1)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in this Act, the Registrar may,
by order in writing, cancel the registration
of any society on any of the following
grounds:-

(a) that the registration of the society
or of its name or change of name is
contrary to the provisions of this Act or of
any other law for the time being in force;

(b) that its activities or proposed
activities have been or are or will be
subversive of the objects of the society or
opposed to public policy;

[(c) that the registration or the
certificate of renewal has been obtained
by misrepresentation or fraud:]

Provided
that
no
order
of
cancellation of registration of any society
shall be passed until the society has been
given a reasonable opportunity of altering
its name or object or of showing cause
against the action proposed to be taken in
regard to it.

[(2) An appeal against an order made
under sub-section (1) may be preferred to
the Commissioner of the Division in
whose jurisdiction the Headquarter of the
society lies, within one month from the
date of communication of such order.
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3)
The
decision
of
the
Commissioner under sub-section (2), shall
be final and shall not be called in question
in any court.]

6. From a perusal of the aforesaid
provision it is apparently clear that the
Registrar has been given various powers
for cancelling the registration of the
Society. Section 12D(1)(c) which was
inserted by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984
provides that an appeal would also lie
against an order where the certificate of
renewal
has
been
obtained
by
misrepresentation or fraud.

7. In the opinion of the Court, the
appeal of the petitioner was maintainable
and that the appellate authority committed
an error in rejecting the appeal on the
ground that it was not maintainable.

8. In the light of the aforesaid, the
impugned appellate order is quashed. The
writ petition is allowed.

9. The matter is remitted back to the
appellate authority to decide the appeal of the
petitioners after hearing all the parties
concerned within 6 months from the date of
production of the certified copy of this order.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA. J.

First Appeal from Order No.1963 of 2003

Masood Ahmad & Anr.
...Appellants
Versus
Sardar Jaswant Singh & Anr...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.P. Dubey
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.C. Tyagi, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi
Smt. Archana Tyagi, Sri P. Tyagi

Motor Vehicle Act.-1988, Section-173
First appeal from order- against order
passed by Motor Accident claim Tribunalalthough awarded Rs. 5,0000/ under
section 140-but held-claim petition not
maintainable-as the injury caused-due to
blast of tanker-which fell down 20'
beside
the
road-due
to
collusion
between truck and bus-and leakage of
petrol-held
claim
petition
is
maintainable.

Held: Para-23
Thus in view of aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of
the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, it can be clearly held that
"claimant
shall
be
entitled
to
compensation from Insurance Company
if it is proved that accident of deceased
arose out of use of motor vehicle

Case Law discussed:
AIR 1991 SC 1769; AIR 2000 SC 1930; AIR
1999 SC 136; AIR 2001 SC 485; 2005(1) TAC
404.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J.)

1. The present First Appeal From
Order
has
been
filed
against
the
judgement and order dated 30.04.1997
passed by Sri B.B. Roy, II Additional
District Judge, Saharanpur (Acting as
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) in
Accident Claim No. 108 of 1996 which
was heard and disposed off by the
aforesaid judgement and order.

2. The relief sought by this appeal is
that this Court may be pleased to allow the
appeal and set aside the judgement and order
dated 30.04.1997 passed by II Additional
District Judge, Saharanpur (Acting as Motor
Accidents
Claims
Tribunal).