D. DWARAKANANTHA REDDY versus CHAITNYA BHARATHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 775 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

D. DWARAKANANTHA REDDY 
A 
v. 
CHAilNY A BHARA THI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKER AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.) 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 39, Rules 1 und 2-Jnterim 
injunction-Grant of-Prima facie case-Registered Society-Persons 
inducted as Promoter-Members into General Body allegedly by resolution C 
of Board of Governors and subsequently approved by General Body-Society 
claiming that induction was null and void as resolution of Board of Governors 
was merely a 'proposal' and subsequent approval of General Body of Society 
from holding election of Governing Body authority-Interim injunction to 
restraint Society from holding election of Governing Body without giving 
them opportunity of participation-Rejected by Courts below on lack of D 
prima facie case-Correctne~s of-Held-Resolution of Board of Governors 
merely stated that nine persons will be inducted into General Body as per 
Constitution of Society-As per Articles of Association of Society an amount 
had to be paid by a person before his admission, and that was not paid either 
at the time of meeting of Board of Governors or General Body meeting ; it 
was paid only after impugned resolution was passed and that too without E 
informing Society-Even if there was a mistake, it was not a mutal mistake-
Notice calling for explanation and opportunity of hearing was not required 
as controversy did not re/ate to expulsion of member and issue whether 
induction into General Body was legal, was yet to be decided-Jn absence 
• 
of any particulars, it cannot be said that action of Society was mala fide or F 
co/ourable exercise of power-Photographs, reports etc. showing that all 
throughout they were treated as Promoter~Members and worked as such, 
were immaterial, if admission in Society was illegal. 
Respondent is a registered Society. Its Founding Members Constituted 
General Body as well as Governing Council/Executive Body. It is the case of G 
the appellants that they were inducted as Promoter-Members into the General 
Body of the Society by a unanimous resolution of the Board of Governors dated 
January 27, 2000, in exercise of their power under Clause ll(i) of the Articles 
of Association, and this was subsequently approved by the General Body of 
775 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A the respondent on March 22, 2006. They were therefore entitled to participate 
in the election of Board of Governors as per the Memorandum and Articles 
of Association. They received a caveat from the respondent stating that their 
claim as Promoter-Members of the society and calling for General Body 
Meeting was not tenable because their admission as Promoter-Members was 
B null and void. It stated that the resolution dated January 27, 2000 was merely 
a 'proposal' with a condition that nine persons would be admitted as members 
at an appropriate time, and the resolution dated March 22, 2006 passed by 
the General Body of the Society admitting them as Promoter-Members was 
without authority and null and void. 
C 
Aggrieved by the above, the appellants filed Original Petitions in the 
City Civil Court for a declaration that they were legally inducted members 
and were entitled to participate in the management and administration of the 
respondent. A prayer was also made for permanent injunction, along with 
application for interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with 
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to restrain the respondent 
D from holding election of the Governing Body without including them and 
without giving them opportunity of participating in the election process. The 
City Civil Court dismissed the application for interim injunction inter alia 
observing that no prima facie case had been made out Aggrieved by this order, 
the appellants preferred Revision Petitions. The High Court dismissed all 
E Revision Petitions, and directed the trial Court to dispose of Original 
Petitions. This is challenged by all the appellants in the present appeals. 
Appellants contended that (i) neither the Memorandum of Association 
n9r Articles of Association imposed a condition precedent for payment of Rs.I 
lakh for becoming a Promoter-Member, and its non-payment cannot be made 
F a ground to expel or rem9ve them; even otherwise, they had never refused to 
pay the said amount; (ii) apart from the fact that Articles of Association 
prescribed no time limit within which a payment of Rs.l lakh was to be mad

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