Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
1 Date :15.02.2020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3486 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT (STAMP NO.) 9827 OF 2019
(CNR MHCC01-009525-2019)
Naresh Talavlikar .. Plaintiff
Versus
The Mumbai Police Gymkhana Trust & Anr. .. Defendants
Appearances :-
Adv. Arun Nile I/b Adv. G. K. Tripathi for the plaintiff.
Adv. Priyanka Daga I/b Adv. Jayakar Partners for Defendant.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
Judge
CR No. : 07
Date : 15.02.2020
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has filed instant Notice of Motion seeking
following reliefs :
(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a permanent order
and injunction restraining the defendant including its
Managing Committee, their servants and agents or
persons acting through or under them, to act upon or
take action in any manner, on the basis of the Letter of
Expulsion dated 23.08.2019 being Exh. J hereto.
(b) Pending th hearing and final disposal of the present suit,
this Hon’ble ourt be pleased to pass a temporary order
and injunction restraining the defendants including its
Managing Committee, their servants and agents and
prsons acting through or unde them, to act upon or take
-- 1 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
2 Date :15.02.2020
action in any manner, on the Letter of Ex[ulsion dated
23.08.2019 being Exh. J hereto or in the alternative the
operation, effect and implementation of Letter of
Expulsion dated 23.08.2019 being Exh. K hereto be
stayed.
(c) Ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses
(a) and (b) above, be granted.
(d) Costs of the Notice of Motion be provided for.
(e) That such other and further relief be granted, as the
nature an circumstances of the case may require.
2. It is contended by the plaintiff that he had successful career
in Police force and have been enjoying the membership of
defendants without any iota of complaint and the illegal issuance
of letter of Expulsion of dated 23.08.2019 of his membership has
caused grave and server injury to his mind and wrongful loss to his
corporeal property apart from casing harm to his reputation and
further continuation of letter of Expulsion dated 23.08.2019 is
further causing continuous tarnishing of the plaintiff’s reputation
and prestige amongst the members of the defendant Gymkhana,
and is further causing continuous great harm, loss and prejudice to
the plaintiff which can not be compensated in terms of money.
Therefore, he is seeking temporary order of injunction restraining
the defendant, their servants, agents and persons acting through or
under them, to act upon or take action in any manner of the said
letter of Expulsion dated 23.08.2019. Therefore, plaintiff filed
instant Notice of Motion.
-- 2 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
3 Date :15.02.2020
3. The Notice of Motion is opposed by the defendants by filing
reply. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff failed
to make out any case for grant of interim relief as the suit is barred
by law. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1 is a Trust,
registered under provision of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
with Charity Commissioner and also registered under Societies
Registration Act, 1860. Admittedly, the plaintiff who was member
of defendant no. 1 has now been expelled from the Mumbai police
Gymkhana on account of gross misconduct. Thus, being a past
member of the Gymkhana, the plaintiff has an interest in the
affairs of the Gymkhana as a member. This beneficial interest has
now been terminated. Hence, no interim relief an be granted in
favour of plaintiff.
4. It is further submitted that present suit is not maintainable,
as the plaintiff failed to take prior consent of Charity
Commissioner as contemplated under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. Without such consent, the
suit of the present nature i.e. seeking a declaration that the
plaintiff’s expulsion is purportedly null and void and a further
prayer for permanent injunction against defendant no. 1 Trust, is
untenable in law. As the present suit is legally barred, then there
is no question of any relief, much less any ad-interim relief being
granted to the plaintiff.
-- 3 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
4 Date :15.02.2020
5. It is further submitted that the defendant no. 1 is the Trust
and the plaintiff failed to add Trustees of the Trust and hence, the
suit is bad for non-joider of necessary parties.
6. It is further submitted on merit that the plaintiff is expelled
from Gymkhana as his conduct of sending defamatory emails
about the Chairman regarding the use of the lounge and same
were circulated. Therefore, show cause notice issued to plaintiff as
to why he should not be expelled from his membership. The
plaintiff gave no plausible explanation. Therefore, after due
process, Managing Committee, unanimously opined the case of
gross misconduct and accordingly the plaintiff is expelled as per
Constitution, vide Expulsion Letter dated 23.08.2019. Therefore,
there no substance in the present Notice of Motion and defendant
prayed for dismissal of the same.
7. The defendant by filing rejoinder contended that the
defendant no. 2 chosen not to offer any reply which goes to prove
that the defendant no. 2 has nothing to say in the matter.
8. It is submitted that admittedly there is no complaint either in
oral or in writing against the plaintiff , for issuance of such show
cause notice. The reasons offered for issuance of letter of
expulsion is contrary to Rule No. 13.7 of the Constitution and Rule
9 of the Annexure – B of Memorandum of Association.
Admittedly, the defendants have failed to produce proof with
regard to Secretary having power to issue show cause notice. The
defendants failed to offer any reply with regard to the Gymkhana
-- 4 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
5 Date :15.02.2020
was being provided to Force-1 by having approval of Managing
Committee or AGM or Notice of information being circulated to
the member of the Card holder. Admittedly, there is no follow up
of principles of natural justice a there is no hearing provided to the
plaintiff before issuance of letter of expulsion.
9. The plaintiff specifically contended that he is not a member
of defendant no. 1 Trust. The membership was offered to th
plaintiff for the Gymkhana not by the defendant no. 1 i.e. Trust but
by the Gymkhana i.e. defendant no. 2. The plaintiff is obliged to
abide and follow the Rules and Regulations of Mubai Police
Gymkhana i.e. defendant no.2, which are more particularly
construed in Annexure B of Memorandum of Association and
constitution and Rules of defendant no. 2.
10. It is further specifically contended that functionaries and
management of both the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 are
separate, independent and distinct. The plaintiff specifically
denied of having any interet in the affairs of the Gymkhana as a
member sans the benefits affiliated with the membership of
defendant no. 2 Gymkhana.
11. It is submitted by the plaintiff that he is neither interested in
the affairs of the defendant no. 1 Trust, nor a beneficial member of
the defendant no. 1 Trust. Hence, there is no question of seeking
consent as contemplated under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Public Trust Act, 1950.
-- 5 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
6 Date :15.02.2020
12. It is submitted by the plaintiff that suit filed by him in no
manner seeks to alter and interferes with the working and
managing the affairs of the defendant no. 1 Trust. For the
working of defendant no. 1 Trust, the Trustees hold their own
meeting whereas for the affairs regarding the working of
Gymkhana, Managing Committee i.e. the defendant no. 2 hold its
own meetings.
13. It is submitted that the affairs in respect of any membership
of Gymkhana, the defendant no. 2 is falling under working of the
defendant no. 2 Gymkhana. The impugned Order of expulsion
dated 23.08.2019 is passed for alleged misconduct by the
Managing Committee of defendant no. 2 and plaintiff claimed
interim and final relief only against defendant no. 2.
14. It is further contended by the plaintiff that he was not
against placing staff of Force-1at the Gymkhana in emergency. He
was only concerned with non following of proper procedure of
getting approaval of Managing Committee as required as per the
Clause (viii) of Memorandum of Association and the Clause 7 of
Rule A-2.4 which was not followed. The plaintiff submitted that
the emails isued by him to the Chairman of defendant no. 2
Gymkhana and forwarding of copies to some of the members of
the Managing Committee of defendant no. 2 Gymkhana does not
fit at all in any provision of “Obligations and Punitiv Actions”
defined under Rule 13 of the constitution and Annexure B of the
Memorandum of Association.
-- 6 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
7 Date :15.02.2020
15. It is submitted by the plaintiff that there is no complaint of
any member of defendant no. 2 Gymkhana, which is mandatory as
per Rule 13.9 of the Constitution and Rule 9 of the Annexure B of
Memorandum of Association, which is mandatory for issuance of
show cause notice. The Show Cause Notice was issued without
mandatory approval of the Managing Committee of defendant mo.
2 which is require as per Rule 13.11 (c) and (d) of the Constitution
and Rule 11(c) and (d) of Annexure B of Memorandum of
Association. Hence, the plaintiff submitted that his suit is not
barred by any law and his expulsion is issued without following
principles of natural justice. Hence, he prayed for granting present
Notice of Motion.
16. Heard both the sides. Perused Chamber Summons, reply,
rejoinder as well as pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiff filed
instant suit praying for following reliefs :
a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Letter
of Expulsion dated 23.08.2019 being Exhibit J herto is
arbitrary, unlawful, malafided, contrary to the Rules an
therefore, is illegal, null and voide, bad in law, and is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
b. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a permanent
order and injunction restraining the defendants
including its Managing Committee, their servants and
agent or persons acting through or under them, to act
upon or take action in any manner, on the basis of the
Letter of Expulsion dated 23.08.2019 being Exh. J.
-- 7 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
8 Date :15.02.2020
hereto.
c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present
suit, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a temporary
order and injunction retraining the defendants
including its Managing Commitee, their servants and
agents and persons acting through or under them, to
act upon or take action in any manner, on the Letter of
Expulsion dated 23.08.2019 being Exh. J. hereto or in
the alternative of Letter of Expulsion dated 23.08.2019
being Exh. J hereto be stayed.
d. Ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer
clauses (b) and (c) above, be granted.
e. Costs of the suit be provided for.
f. That such other and further relief be granted, as the
nature and circumstances of the case my require.
17. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint, it is the
case of plaintiff that he is member of defendant no. 1 Mumbai
Police Gymkhana Trust since several years and has been granted
membership under Clause of Police Membership. The defendant
no. 2 is the Committee formed for the management and running of
the activity of the defendant no. 1. It is the case of the plaintiff
that on or around June 2019 he learned unauthorized and
structural changes carried out in the building of Police Gymkhana
without approval of defendant’s Committee and without
permission of M.C.G.M. Later on it was learnt that Chairman of
defendant no. 2, who has also Trustee of defendant no. 2 being
-- 8 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
9 Date :15.02.2020
actively involved. Therefore, on 21.06.2019 he has sent mail to
the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai Shri. Sanjay Barve who is
also Ex-officio Chairman of defendant no. 2 and Trustee of
Defendant no. 1. Upon receipt of the aforesaid emails defendant
demolished the unauthorised and illegal structure. Due to
aforesaid conduct of the plaintiff, the venue for holding of meeting
of the Managing Committee was fixed up at the office of
Commissioner of Mumbai, Crawford Market rather than specious
premises of defendant no. 1 which is required to be used for the
Annual General Meetings as per the provisions in the
Memorandum of Association which was objected by the plaintiff in
his mail dated 21.06.2019. Inspite of receipt of the aforesaid
emails, the defendants were reluctant in proceeding ahead with
the organisation of the meeting of management Committee.
Therefore, the plaintiff on 11.08.2019 issued another email by
which he has pointed out shortcomings of the Commissioner of
Police which is nothing but an willful contravention to the
provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The
shortcomings which has been pointed out by the plaintiff are as
under :
i. Non fulfillment of objectives Nos. iv. and v of
Memorandum of Association in last 15 years.
ii. Non-intimation of changes in the management,
maintenance and other issues of the Gymkhana to the
office of Charity Commissioner.
iii. Failure to file annual balance sheet / audit report with
the office of Charity Commissioner.
-- 9 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
10 Date :15.02.2020
iv. Failure to hold meeting of Managing Committee every
quarter.
v. No AGM being held since 2016.
vi. Mandatory period prescribed of 14 days not being
followed for and towards meeting of Managing
Committee.
vii. Improper use of Trust property.
18. It is further specific case of the plaintiff that office bearers of
the defendant without adhering to the clause of Memorandum of
Association and without any AGM or Managing Committee
meeting and / or prior intimation to the member, the card holders,
unilaterally reserves the halls at first and second floor of the
Gymkhana, for Force-1 without charging of any rent thereby
causing loss to the defendant no. 1.
19. It is further learnt to the plaintiff that from other co-
members of the defendants that they were restrained from
accessing the area of lounge and restaurant by the team of Force-1
on 12.08.2019 which was under oral instructions of Shri. Sanjay
Barve, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. It is submitted by the
plaintiff that he is not against placing staff of Force-1 in Gymkhana
in emergency but the plaintiff was only concerned that proper
procedure of getting approval of Managing Committee is required
as per Clause (viii) of the Memorandum of Association and Clause
7 of Rule A-2.4 was not followed.
-- 10 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
11 Date :15.02.2020
20. It is further case of plaintiff that Show Cause Notice dated
16.08.2012 which was issued by the Hon’ble Secretary of the
defendants under instructions of Shri. Barve, Commissioner of
Police, Mumbai and not under powers vested under the Managing
Committee of defendant no. 1. It is the case of plaintiff that
under the provisions Memorandum of Association and Constitution
and the Rules of defendant no. 1, the powers / authority vested
under Manging Committee for and towards issuance of Show
Cause Notice cannot be delegated. Hence, the Show Cause Notice
issued by Hon’ble Secretary is Ipso Facto illegal and bad in law and
as such is nothing but an arbitrary abuse of powers entailing the
plaintiff to approach this Hon’ble Court.
21. It is further contended by the plaintiff that Show Cause
Notice does not meet definition and criteria of “mis-conduct”
either in clause 13.7 of Constitution of Gymkhana or Clause 7 of
the Annexure B of th Memorandum of Association. Defendant in
utter disregard to principles of natural justice, fair play and
without considering the deeming clauses of Memorandum of
Association and Constitution and Rules of Mumbai Police
Gymkhana vide, their letter dated 23.08.2019 expelled the
membership of plaintiff. It is contended by the plaintiff that as per
Memorandum of Association, and constitution and Rules of
Gymkhana, Managing Committee cannot delegate the powers
much less to the Hon’ble Secretary for issuance of Show Cause
Notice and Expulsion Letter. Therefore, same is issued in complete
disregard to the provision of Memorandum of Association and
-- 11 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
12 Date :15.02.2020
Constitution and Rules of Gymkhana.
22. Thus, on perusal of the pleadings and prayers of the plaint, it
appears that the plaintiff is challenging the Expulsion letter on the
ground of non compliance of various clauses of Memorandum of
Association of defendant no. 1 and rules framed by defendant no.
2 and seeking declaration against both the defendants. The first
legal objection raised by the defendants that the plaintiff being
member of defendant no. 1 is “Person having interest” as defined
under section 2(10)(d) of Maharashtra Public Trust Act
“(hereinafter shall be referred to as MPT Act).
23
. The plaintiff seeking declaration and injunction against the
defendant. Therefor, the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff are
clearly covered under provision of Section 50 of the MPT Act and
in the absence of prior consent from the Charity Commissioner
before the suit, the suit was clearly not maintainable. In support
of their contentions, defendants relied on following judgment :
a) Rajesh Chunilal Meghani V/s. Andheri Recreation Club &
Ors. reported in 2017 SCC Online Bom 2442.
b) Social And Cultural Association & Ors. V/s. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 174.
c) Dr. Vishwanath Dadarao Karad & Ors. V/s. Avinash Bhaskar
Avhad & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Online Bom 1219.
d) Church of North India V/s. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & Ors.
reported in (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 760.
-- 12 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
13 Date :15.02.2020
24. Per contra learned advocate for the Plaintiff argued that he is
not member of respondent no.1 trust. He has obtained
membership of the defendant no.2. The function and management
of both the defendants are different, distinct and separate. The
Plaintiff is not interested in the affairs of the trust nor he is the
beneficial member of the trust. Hence, there is no question of his
seeking permission of the Charity Commissioner before filling of
the suit. In support of his arguments he has relied on the following
judgments:-
a.
Jagdish Chander Sachdeva vs Royal Bombay Yacht Club,
2005(1) Mh. L. J. 987,
b.
Sahebgouda (dead) by Lrs and others vs Ogeppa and
others, AIR 2003 SC 2743,
c.
Namgonda Jingonda Patil vs Appasaheb Bapurao
Walwekar & others, 2000 vol. 102(2) Bom. L. R. 142,
d.
Kedar Shivkumar Kale vs Digamber Shridhar Mhapsekar and
others, 2007(4) Mh. L. J. 77
25. I have gone through the judgments cited by both the parties.
The defendants relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High
Court in case of
Rajesh Chunilal Meghnan (Supra)
, in the above
judgment the Hon'ble High Court held that the suit regarding
suspension of membership of appellant from respondent- club, a
registered public trust, the suit filed for declaration of suspension
order as null, void and illegal and also seeking injunction
restraining trustees to act upon resolution of his suspension, the
-- 13 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
14 Date :15.02.2020
suit stands covered under section 50 of Maharashtra Public Trust
Act and hence prior permission of Charity Commissioner is
necessary.
26. In case of
Social and Cultural Association (Supra), the
Plaintiffs claims that to keep him out of power, their membership is
cancelled and that membership cancelled is beyond Scheme of
Trust. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that declaration
relating to "any right " in favour of or against trustees or
beneficiaries thereof is covered under the provisions of Section 50
of MPT Act. The right to claim membership cannot be said to be
divorced from being member of the Trust. The right emanates
basically from being member of the Trust. Merely calling the right
civil right will not help. It cannot be said that it is any independent
right not connected with the affairs of the Trust or Management of
the Trust.
27. In case of
Church of North India(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that a pleas as to bar of Jurisdiction of a Civil Court
must be considered having regard to the scheme of the Act as also
the object purport it seeks to achieve. Such plea must be
considered having regard to the averments in the plaint. The
averments disclosing the cause of action and the reliefs sought for
therein must be considered in their entirety.
-- 14 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
15 Date :15.02.2020
28. Thus, in order to decide first objection of the defendants in
respect of jurisdiction of this court, in view of the judgment of
Church of North India (Supra), the averments of the plaint is
necessary to looked into. The Plaintiff although, in rejoinder
denied that he is not member of defendant no.1, but his pleadings
in the plaint clearly shows that he has averted that he is the
member of defendant no.1, Trust. The Show cause notice and
expulsion order issued by the Secretary is in contravention of
clauses of Memorandum of Association and rules framed
thereunder. Therefore, he sought declaration that the letter of
expulsion is illegal, null and void. He further prayed for injunction
not only against the defendant no.2 but also against the defendant
no.1, the Trust, not to act upon such expulsion order.
29. Thus, upon perusal of the averments in the plaint and also
the reliefs claimed therein, it is clear that the Plaintiff admits that
he is the member of Trust and also sought relief against the Trust.
Section 2 (10) of MPT Act defines the expression "person having
interest" includes, inter alia, in case of a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860, any member of such Society
and in case of any other public trust any trustee or beneficiary.
Thus, in view of the averment made in the plaint, in my view, the
plaintiff fall under the definition of "person having interest".
30. In case of
Jagdish Chander Sachdeva (supra), relied by the
Plaintiff, Appellant challenge the order refusing to grant
injunction. In the aforesaid case the Plaintiff was the permanent
-- 15 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
16 Date :15.02.2020
member of club and his membership entitled him allotment of
room for long term stay in the club premises room no.49/50.
However, the Plaintiff did not shift to his room from room no. 33 &
34, which were temporarily allotted to him as room no.49/50 was
under renovation. Therefore, club terminated his membership
under rules of the club. In the above case, the challenge was not
on the maintainability of the suit. Hence, with due respect, in my
view, the above case is not applicable in the present case.
31. In case of
Sahebgouda (supra), the appellant challenge and
sought declaration that they are
Wahiwat pujaris and have
pujariki
rights of performing
puja and also sought consequential decree for
injunction restraining respondents. The Hon'ble Apex Court held
that the jurisdiction of civil court does not oust the suit, as no
declaration regarding existence or otherwise of trust/trust property
claimed. Thus, the challenge was in respect of enforcement of civil
right of the plaintiff, which is not the case in hand. The Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in case of
Social and Cultural Association case
(supra) has held that cancellation of membership is not an
individual rights. Hence, in my view, the above judgment is not
helpful to the case of Plaintiff.
32. In case of
Namgonda Jingonda Patil (supra), the Hon'ble
Single Judge of Bombay High Court held that that suit by members
against other members for declaration and injunction, in which no
relief sought against the Trust, no notice to or permission of the
Charity Commissioner is necessary.
-- 16 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
17 Date :15.02.2020
33. In case of
Kedar Kale's case (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court confirmed the order of trial court which held that the
reliefs claimed in the suit and in the Motion by the Plaintiff was
not directed against the Trust as such, but to give effect to his civil
rights of the plaintiff which were affected on account of illegal
resolution purportedly passed by the Council, so as to remove him
from the post of Chairman.
34. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of
Rajesh Chunnilal
Meghnani (Supra) in its para 27 reiterated the contents of para 25
of Judgment of case of
Dr. Rangnath P. Joshi (Supra), with respect
to observations made in case of
Namgonda Patil and Kedar
Shivkumar Kale (Supra), the para no. 27 are reproduce as under:-
Para No. 27: The decision in Dr. Rangnath P. Joshi (supra), is
relevant because it distinguishes most of the decisions relied upon
by Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant. In this regard,
the observations in paragraph 25 are necessary, which read thus:
“
25. The second ground urged by Mr. Pitre is as regards the
removal of plaintiff No. 2 from the post of Treasurer. Heavy
reliance is placed by Mr. Pitre on the decision in the case of
Namgonda Patil and in the case of Kedar Kale. As far as the
decision in the case of Namgonda Patil is concerned, learned
Single Judge had no occasion to consider the decision of the
Apex Court in the case Church of Northern India (Supra) as the
decision in the case of Namgonda Patil was delivered on 7
March 2000 and the decision in the case of Church of Northern
-- 17 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
18 Date :15.02.2020
India was delivered by the Apex Court on 3 May, 2005. In the
case of Church of Northern India, the Apex Court dealt with the
bar of jurisdiction of a Civil Court under section 80 of the Act,
in extensio. The position of law therefore, will have to be
analysed in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Church of Northern India. Furthermore, in the case of
Namgonda Patil, learned Single Judge, relied on the decision in
the case of Dinanath Ingole, however in the case of Dinanath
Ingole, it was categorically held that the suit for declaration
that the plaintiffs therein are continued to be office bearers,
which was for the Charity Commissioner to decide, could not be
decided in a Civil Court. Therefore, the decision in the case of
Namgonda Patil is without noticing the ratio in the case of
Dinanath Ingole as well as prior to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Church of Northern India. Similar is the
position in respect of the case of Kedar Kale. In the case of
Kedar Kale learned Single Judge simplicitor referred to the
decision of Namgonda Patil and held that since similar issue
was considered in the said decision and negatived, the
contention raised had to be negatived. Therefore, the decisions
in Namgonda Patil and Kedar Kale, though based on decision of
Dinanath Ingole was not in tune with the ratio of the Dinanath
Ingole. Furthermore the law will have to be considered in light
of the Apex Court decision in Church of Northern India.
Therefore the decisions relied upon by Mr. Pitre are
distinguishable. On the other hand, in the case of Gaud
Saraswat, it was categorically held that removal of a person as
-- 18 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
19 Date :15.02.2020
a trustee, who holds a post defined under the Act, will not
mean that a civil right is affected. Identical view is taken in
Social and Cultural Association wherein also issue arose
regarding removal of some persons from a trust.”
35. Thus, in view of the above observation made in
Rajesh
Chunilal Meghani, in my view, the judgments of
Kedar Kale and
Namgonda Patil, will not be helpful to the Plaintiff.
36. Section 50 of the MPT Act provides for institution of suits, by
or against or relating to public trust or others. It provides that in
any case, where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for
the administration of any public trust, or for any declaration or
injunction in favour of or against a public trust or trustee or
trustees or beneficiary thereof, the Charity Commissioner, after
making such enquiry as he thinks necessary may himself institute a
suit to obtain any of the reliefs prescribed u/s 50 of MPT Act. In
the alternative, two or more persons having an interest, in case the
suit is under sub-clause (i) to (iii), or one or more such persons in
case the suit is under sub-clause (iv), having obtained the consent
in writing of the Charity Commissioner, as provided u/s 51 of MPT
Act, may institute a suit in the Court within a local limits of whose
jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject matter of the trust is
situated, again, to obtain a decree for any of the reliefs specified in
section 50 of MPT Act.
37. Section 51 of the MPT Act provides that if the person having
an interest in any public trust intend to file a suit of the nature
-- 19 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
20 Date :15.02.2020
specified in section 50, they shall apply to the Charity
Commissioner in writing for his consent. If the Charity
Commissioner after hearing the parties and making such enquiries,
if any, thinks fit that there is prima facie case, he may within a
period of six months from the date on which application is made,
grant or refuse his consent to the institution of such suit.
38. Admittedly in the present case no such permission has been
obtained by the Plaintiff. Therefore, after considering the above
judgments, I am of the view, that the suit of the plaintiff is hit by
the provision of MPT Act and prima-facie this court has no
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Therefore,
without adverting on the other aspect of the matter, in my view,
the Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief much less interim relief.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 3486 of 2019 is hereby dismissed with
cost.
2. Notice of Motion No. 3486 of 2019 is disposed off
accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Dated : 15.02.2020 Greater Bombay.
Dictated on : 15.02.2020
Typed on : 15.02.2020
Draft Submitted on : 15.02.2020
Checked on : 02.03.2020
Signed on : 02.03.2020
-- 20 of 21 --
NM 3486-19 in S.C.Suit (Stamp no.) 9827/19
21 Date :15.02.2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
02/03/2020 at 3.45 p.m. (Ms. V.V.Sawant)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.7)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
15/02/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
02/03/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 02/03/2020
-- 21 of 21 --