NANSHIBHAI S/O GANESHBHAI MIRANI versus BHUPENDRA P. POPAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 23-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NANSHIBHAI S/O GANESHBHAI MIRANI 
v. 
BHUPENDRA P. POPAT AND ANR. 
MARCH 23, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARillT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Trust-Governing body-Function and power of-Filing of a suit 
C relating to function of Sri Lohana Mahaparishad-Consent order passed by 
High Court directing the Mahaparishad to hold a General Body Meeting to 
consider 23 Agenda items-Consideration of few items in one meeting by the 
existing governing body and remaining in the next meeting by newly 
constituted governing body-Challenge to-High Court held that the old 
D governing body was the only body which could take decision on the remaining 
items-On appeal, Held: High Court failed to consider two aspects, viz., the 
scope of reopening the entire matter after passing the consent order and the 
effect of decision taken by the newly constituted governing body-Hence the 
matter remitted to the High Court for consideration of these aspects. 
E · 
A suit was filed relating to the function of Sri Lohana Mahaparishad, 
in which a consent order was passed by the Court against which an appeal 
was filed by respondent No.I before the High Court The High Court directed 
to have a General Body Meeting to consider 23 Agenda items including holding 
the election for the post of President and four trustees of the Mahaparishad. 
F In the meeting of the Madhyastha Maha Samiti ofMahaparishad, on the request 
of majority of members, item no.9 pertaining to the election of four trustees 
in place of the retiring trustees and agenda item no. 22 pertaining to election 
of the President was taken up. President and four trustees were elected. 
Respondent no.I was the Chief Polling Agent of one of the trustees. Due to 
paucity of time the meeting was adjourned for consideration of the remaining 
G agenda items at later date. According to appellant after due notice to all the 
members the next meeting was held and the remaining items of agenda were 
considered and adopted. Aggrieved, the respondent no.I filed an application 
alleging that the decision on remaining agenda items could not have been 
taken at a subsequent meeting by the newly elected governing body. The 
H petition was allowed by the High Court holding that the old governing body 
398 
+ 
+ 
( 
.... 
NANSHIBHAI S/OGANESHBHAI MIRAN! v. BHUPENDRAP. POPAT 
399 
was the only body which could have taken the decision so far as the remaining A 
items of the agenda are concerned and, therefore, there was violation of the 
specific order as contained in the consent order. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the High Court has clearly fallen into error 
by holding that it was the old governing body which had to take the decision, 
that would put the clock back and process of the election of the new body would B 
be an exercise in futility; that in fact, the meeting was held after due notice 
to eligible persons and decisions were taken; and that respondent No.1, at 
the behest of another candidate who lost presidential election, had filed the 
application and the High Court had erroneously entertained the application. 
Respondents submitted that various vital agenda items were to be C 
considered. It was only the old governing body which had taken various 
resolutions which were to be discussed in terms of various agenda items and 
the new governing body had no role to play so far as these items are concerned. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court failed to consider two very relevant aspects. 
Firstly, the scope of re-opening the entire matter in the case after passing of 
the consent order was required to be considered. Secondly, it has failed to 
consider the effect of the decisions/resolutions taken at the meeting held 
D 
earlier. [Para 7) [401-D-E) 
E 
1.2. It would be appropriate for the High Court to consider the 
·maintainability of the application filed by respondent no.1 in the matter and 
the efft~t of resolutions taken on 4.9.2005, if it comes to hold that the 
application was maintainable. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the High 
Court for fresh consideration of the aforesaid two aspects for which no opinion F 
has been expressed. [Para 8) [401-F-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1554 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2005 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay in C.A. No. 915/2005 in A.F.O. No. 427/2005. 
G 
R.F. Nariman, H.A. Raichura, S.H. Raichura and R.M. Vith

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