I. NELSON AND ANR. versus KALLAYAM PASTORATE AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 14-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
I. NELSON AND ANR. 
v. 
KALLA YAM PASTORA TE AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 14. 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
Constitution of India-Articles 25 and 26-Societies Registration Act, 
1860-Tamil Nadu Societies Registration A~t, 1975-Sections 44 and 53-
A 
B 
Suit filed before High Court to declare elections of a. Society as null and C 
void-Advocate Commissioner appointed by the High Court held elections 
and submitted a Report stating that the Society has become defunct-High 
Court set aside the elections on that ground-Correctness of-Held, State 
Act provides for mechanism for removal of a defunct Society fiwn the Register 
of Societies and dissolve the registered Society-It is for the authorities 
under the Act and not the High Court to look into whe1her a Society has D 
become defimct-Hence, setting aside the elections on the ground that the 
Society has become defunct is not valid 
A Church, initially registered under the Societies Registration Act, 
1860, came to be governed under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 
1975. The Church runs a large number of schools and hospitals. A suit was E 
filed against the Church before High Court to declare the elections conducted 
by its Society as null and void. The High Court appointed an Advocate 
Commissioner to hold the elections. The Commissioner conducted the 
elections and submitted a report to the High Court stating that the Society 
has become defunct The High Court, on the basis of the report, gave directions F 
to the elected members of the Society to apply for fresh registration with the 
Registrar of Societies. On non-compliance of the directions, the High Court 
set aside the elections of the Society. Appellant and one another, who were 
elected members, filed an application for impleading them as parties to the 
suit before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the application on the 
ground that the elections have already been declared null and void. The High G 
Court appointed an Administrator for managing the Society. 
In appi:al to this Court, the appellants contended that the High Court 
erred in declaring the elections null and void since the Registrar of Societies 
219 
H 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A appointed under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 has 
sufficient powers to inquire into the affairs of a Society and cancel registration 
or order winding up or remove defunct societies from the Register; that the 
elections, conducted under the supervision of the Advocate Commissioner, have 
not been held to be unfair; that the order passed by the High Court on the 
basis of the purported consent o~ other elected members, without making them 
B as parties, is a nullity; that the appointment of the Administrator was beyond 
the jurisdiction of the High Court; and that it violated the fundamental rights 
of the appellants under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 provides 
for the mode and manner in which registration of a society is to be cancelled 
and winding up of a society and removal of a defunct ri.~gistered society from 
the registers maintained by the Inspector General of Registration. The 
statutory authority under the Act abdicated itself of its statutory functions. It 
D was for the statutory authorities to take recourse to such actions as are 
provided for in the Act and Rules framed thereunder. In the event, the Society 
became defunct or other statutory requirements were not complied with by 
the members of the Society, penal measures could ha~e been taken but in no 
situation the elections of the office bearers could have been set aside. 
E 
1221-E, F; 226-A, B, C, D, El 
1.2. Right •o contest an election of an office bearer of the Society is a 
statutory right of the member thereof. Such a right also exists under the bye-
laws of the society. Once a valid election was held, the High Court could not 
have directed setting aside of an election only on the purported ground that it 
F became defunct. The High Court in a pending suit cc1uld not have done so. It 
should have relegated the parties to take recourse to such remedies as are 
available in law for questioning the validity of 1:he election before the 
appropriate forum. 1226-E-F; 227-0-E) 
Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr. v. N..:taji Cricket Club 
G and Ors., 120051 4 sec 741, referred to. 
1.3. Keeping in 

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