ADV BABASAHEB WASADE & ORS versus MANOHAR GANGADHAR MUDDESHWAR & ORS

Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1062 · Decided: 23-01-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1062 : 2024 INSC 52
Adv Babasaheb Wasade & Ors. 
v. 
Manohar Gangadhar Muddeshwar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 10846 of 2018)
23 January 2024
[Vikram Nath* And Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
i) Whether the Working President could have convened the election 
meeting for 08.09.2002 as according to the Objectors, it was only 
the Secretary or in the alternative the President who could have 
convened the meeting under the bye laws; ii) Whether the 7 
Objectors were entitled to a notice for the meeting of 08.09.2002 
in view of their disqualification u/s. 15 of the Societies Registration 
Act, 1860; iii) Whether lack of notice to the said 7 Objectors would 
vitiate the entire election meeting of 08.09.2002; iv) Whether invalid 
members had signed the requisition dated 20.08.2002 and had 
been elected to the Executive Committee; v) Whether the private 
respondents had the locus to be heard before any forum or to file an 
appeal/petition against the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner.
Headnotes
Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 
1950 – Whether the Working President could have convened the 
election meeting for 08.09.2002 as according to the Objectors, 
it was only the Secretary or in the alternative the President 
who could have convened the meeting under the bye laws:
Held: The effective office bearers of the Society namely the 
President, Vice-President and the Secretary of the Society had 
expired – Prior to his death, the President due to his poor health, 
the Executive Body under his presidentship passed a resolution 
on 01.07.1997 empowering appellant no. 1 to be designated as 
the Working President – He was recognised was by almost all the 
members of the General Body – In the instant case, it was not only 
appropriate but also legal for the surviving members to request 
for convening a meeting – Further, as many as 16 members had 
requested in writing for convening the meeting – If the submission 
of the Objectors is to be accepted that the Working President could 
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 
1063
Adv Babasaheb Wasade & Ors. v. Manohar Gangadhar 
Muddeshwar & Ors.
not convene the meeting, then no alternative has been suggested 
by the Objectors as to who could convene the meeting – Even 
the Vice-President and the Joint-Secretary had also passed away 
and they had also not been replaced by any fresh elections – 
The only person who could be said to be managing the affairs 
of the Society was the Working President and in particular, when 
all the 16 surviving and valid members had made a request for 
convening a meeting, no fault could be found with the decision of 
the Working President to convene the meeting – The other option 
could have been that all the 16 members could have themselves 
nominated any one of the members to chair the meeting of the 
Executive Body and thereafter they could have proceeded to take 
appropriate decisions – In such situation, the convening of the 
meeting for holding the elections on 08.09.2002 cannot be faulted 
with. [Paras 4, 19, 20]
Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 
1950 – Whether the 7 Objectors were entitled to a notice for 
the meeting of 08.09.2002 in view of their disqualification u/s. 
15 of the Registration Act:
Held: It is not in dispute that all the Objectors were in arrears of 
their membership fee for a period of more than three months – This 
fact is admitted as is recorded by not only the High Court but all 
the three authorities – The specific language used in s. 15 of the 
Registration Act is that such members in default of membership 
fee would not be entitled to vote and would not be counted as 
members of the Society – If they were not entitled to vote and they 
were not to be counted as members, there would be no illegality 
or for that matter any prejudice being caused by not issuing any 
notice as the same would be an exercise in futility. [Para 22]
Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 
1950 – Whether lack of notice to the said 7 Objectors would 
vitiate the entire election meeting of 08.09.2002:
Held: It is true that in the bye-laws of the present Society or the 
Rules of the Society, there is no  provision of automatic cessation 
of membership where a member goes in default of payment of 
membership fee for more than three months – However, the effect 
of the proviso to Section 15 of the Registration Act which admittedly 
is applicable to the Socie

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.