SWATI ULHAS KERKAR AND ORS. versus SANJAY WALAVALKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 3 S.C.R. 1170 · Decided: 10-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
SWATI ULHAS KERKAR AND ORS.
v.
SANJAY WALAVALKAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 412 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 10, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Societies – 22 persons (including appellants) were inducted
on 17.09.17 as members of the Society by the Managing Committee,
despite the pending requisition expressing no confidence against it
– Decision set aside by Registrar – Upheld by High Court –
Challenged by the Society, Chairman and Secretary – SLP was
dismissed with the observation that if the 22 persons who were dis-
membered assail the decision of the High Court, the issue can be
considered on merits – Present appeal – Held: Decision of the then
Managing Committee dtd.17.09.17, suffers from the vice of unseemly
haste, and thus is colourable exercise of power and non-est in the
eyes of law – It cannot be viewed differently for 5 appellants just
because of prior date of application – This is precisely the effect of
the decision of the Registrar in his operative order [paragraph (A)]
as applicable to the appellants and similarly placed two other
persons, who are not before Supreme Court – High Court rightly
upheld that conclusion of the Registrar vide impugned judgment
while dismissing the writ petition of the Society – Order passed by
the Registrar (paragraph (A) of operative order) as affirmed by the
High Court, clarified – Applications made by the appellants and
similarly placed two other persons for grant of membership of the
Society, are deemed to be pending and/or revived and be considered
by the newly constituted Managing Committee on its own merits,
keeping in mind the observations made in the present judgment –
Societies Registration Act, 1860.
Societies – Continuation of election process pending the
present appeal – Challenge to – Held: Not maintainable at the
instance of the appellants as their status is merely that of the
applicants for grant of membership – Until they are admitted as
members of the Society, they would have no right to participate in
the election process.
[2021] 3 S.C.R. 1170
1170
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1171
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 According to respondent No. 1, the question
whether the appellants have been legally and properly admitted
as members or not is a lis between the existing members and the
Managing Committee, to which the appellants herein are
strangers and have no locus in that regard. This argument is
tenuous and cannot be sustained. For, the real question posed at
the instance of these appellants is whether they had a right to be
considered for being admitted as members of the Society and
further whether the order of the Registrar results in
dismembering them despite they being validly admitted as
members at the relevant point of time vide decision of the then
Managing Committee dated 17.09.2017. Indeed, it is open to
the existing members to object to any new person being admitted
as member of the Society by the outgoing Managing Committee
and that would be a lis between the existing members and the
outgoing Managing Committee. That, however, does not denude
the appellants of cause of action, who desired to be admitted as
members of the Society being eligible in all respects, to be
considered for such admission. Similarly, if a person has been
dismembered by the Society including on account of direction
issued by the competent authority, such a person will have
independent remedy to assail that decision. In either case,
therefore, being affected by such non-consideration or by virtue
of dismembering, the aggrieved person would be competent to
pursue remedy before the concerned forum for redressal of his
grievance and for enforcement of his legal rights. The appellants
were admitted by the then Managing Committee to be members
of the Society, but they have been subsequently dismembered
only because of the order passed by the Registrar having become
final. Further, they were made party to the proceedings before
the Registrar, who had set aside the decisions of the then
Managing Committee, dated 17.09.2017. Thus understood, the
objection regarding maintainability of challenge to the decision
of the Registrar and of the High Court by such affected persons
(appellants herein) cannot be countenanced. [Paras 37, 38][1192-
G-H; 1193-A-E]
SWATI ULHAS KERKAR AND ORS. v. SANJAY
WALAVALKAR AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
1.2 It is true that the appellants did not file se

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