T. P. DAVER versus LODGE VICTORIA NO. 363, S. C. BELGAUM

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 12-12-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
T. P. DAVER 
v. 
LODGE VICTORIA NO. 363, S. C. BELGAU~f 
(S. J. IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. SunnA RAo, 
and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Domestic Tribunal-Masonic Lodge-So.,rce of power to 
expel 111e11,bers-Contract by which they become tnember.<-Rules 
must be strictly obsert•td-Must act honestly and in good faith-
i'thould nnt exceed its jurisdiction-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts. 
There is a Scotish Masonic institution known as Grand 
Lodge of Scotland. 
Under this institution there are District 
Grand Lod1.;es. 
Under its superintendence there are Daughter 
Lodges. 
l~hese institutions are governed by their own constitu· 
tions and la\\'S. 
Under those lavvs a member against whom 
disciplinary action htls been taken by a Daughter Lodge can 
appeal to the District Grand Lodge and there is a ri~ht of seco-
nd appeal to the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The appellant was 
a member of one of the Daughter Lodges at Bdgaum known 
as Lodge \ 1ictoria. 
The second respondent made a complaint 
against the appellant alleging that he has committed 12 maso· 
nic offences. 
A notice was issued to the appeUant liy the Sec~ 
retary of the Victoria 
I~odge alleging the commission of these 
offences and requiring him to reply within 14 days. 
The appe· 
llant submitted his answer in extenso to the various charges. 
A special meeting of the Lodge was held at which each charge 
was rea<l, members gave their coniments and each charge was 
put to vote and it was unanimou.<ly decided that the appellant 
was guilty of each charge. By a resolution the oppcllant was 
expelled subject to the confirmation of the District Grand Lodge. 
The decision was cornrnunicated to the appellant who therefore 
filed an appeal to the District Lodge which body after giving 
him adjournment to appear in person dismissed the appeal at 
the 11ext meeting at which the appellant absented himself. A fur· 
ther appeal was filed to the Grand Lodge which was also dis-
missed. 
'.!:'he1·eafter the appellant filed a suit before the Civil 
Judge, Belgaum for a dedaration that the resolution of the 
1962 
1962 
T. ,P. Drt1•tr 
v. 
1.-lt.e Vfrtoria .Na. 
303, S.C. B1Lgc11m 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
Lodge \'ictoria expelling him was void and that he still conti-
n\1ed to be a inember of that Lodge. 
The Civil Judge dismissed 
the suit. 
'f'herc11pon an appeal was filed before the Hh:;h Court 
of Mysore. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The present 
appeal is by way of a certificate granted by the High Court. 
The appellant contended that the Lodge Victoria had 
IJ('I jurh:d ictim1 to try Masonic offences since such offences 
were within the jurisdiction of the District G1and Lodge, 
Bombay. 
. 
Secondly, it was contended that the disciplinary procce-
chngs prescribed by law 198 which governs such proceedings 
were not strictly complied with. It was further contended 
'r 
that the fourteen days to which he was entitled after he filed 
his answer were not granted to hint. 
Lastly, it was argued 
that the decision to expel him was wrong on merits. 
Held, that the source of the power of associations, clubs 
and Lodges to expel their members is the contract on the basis 
of which they become members. 
Bonsor v. Musicians Union, [1956] A. C. 104, followed. 
A member of a Masonic Lodge is bound to abide by the 
rules of the Lodge; and if the rules provide for expulsion, he 
shall be expelled only in the manner provided by the rules. 
Maclean v. The Worker.f Union [1929] 1 Ch. 602 and 
Ezra v. Mahenr!.ra "Nath Banerji, l.L.R. [1946] 2Cal.88, approved. 
The Lodge is bound to act strictly according to the rules; 
whether a particular rule is mandato1y or directory falls to be 
decided in each case, having regard to the well settled rules of 
construction in that ·regard. The jurisdiction of the Civil 
Court is rather limited; it cannot ohviou:cily sit as a court of 
appeal from the decision of ~uch a 1Jocly, it can set aside the 
order of such a body if the said body acts without jurisdiction 
or does not act in good faith or acts in violation of natural 
~ 
justice. 
Maclean v. Tlte 1V orktrs Union, [l 929] 1 Ch. 623 and 
L.A.P.O' Bei!ly v. 
C. C. Grtten•, A LR. (1949) P. C. 313, 
referred to. 
The rules governing tribunals cannot mutatis mutanr!.is J;>e 
applied to such bodies as Lodges. 
One has t? s~e broadly m 
the circumstances of each case whether the prmc1ples of natu-
ral justice has been applied. In the circumstances of this case, 
, 
1 S.

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