Case Note & Summary
These two first appeals arise from a common judgment concerning a charitable trust, Jijau Shikshan Samiti, Yavatmal. The dispute centers on the validity of a Change Report filed by reporting trustee Ramesh Dongre, which reported changes including the induction of new life members. The Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected the Change Report, holding that the notice for the general body meeting held on 5.12.2005 was not issued 15 days prior as required by the trust's bye-laws, and that the induction of life members and the election process were illegal. On appeal, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati, reversed this decision, accepting the Change Report on the ground that short notices had been a past practice and therefore the notice was legal. The objectors, who were existing life members, challenged the Joint Charity Commissioner's order before the District Judge, Yavatmal, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 72 of 2007. The Adhoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal, quashed the Joint Charity Commissioner's order and restored the rejection by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Aggrieved, the reporting trustee (through the trust) and the newly inducted life members filed separate first appeals before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. During the hearing, the appellants argued that the bye-laws contained no specific provision for election of life members and that past instances of short notice justified the meeting procedure. The respondents/objectors contended that the bye-laws unambiguously required 15 days' notice for general body meetings, that the president alone was authorized to issue notice, and that the secretary who issued the notice lacked authority. They further pointed out discrepancies in the notices, agenda, and subsequent ratification of minutes. The court heard extensive submissions on the interpretation of the bye-laws and the factual validity of the meeting. After reserving judgment on 13.2.2020, the court pronounced its decision on 5.3.2020. The provided judgment extract does not contain the final operative portion, and thus the court's decision and reasoning are not available in the text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice for the General Body meeting dated 5.12.2005 complied with the bye-laws of the trust, and whether the induction of new life members and the subsequent Change Report were valid.
Law Points
- Requirement of 15-day notice for General Body meeting under trust bye-laws
- Authority of office bearers to issue notice
- Validity of induction of life members without proper notice
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (03) 92
First Appeal No. 224 of 2018 with First Appeal No. 225 of 2018
For Appellants in FA 224/2018: Mr. N.S. Deshpande; For Appellants in FA 225/2018: Mr. H.D. Marathe; For Respondent Nos. 16 to 19, 20 and 21 in FA 224/2018 and Respondent Nos. 9 to 14 in FA 225/2018: Mr. Anil Kadu; For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. N.S. Rao, A.G.P.
1. Jijau Shikshan Samiti, Yavatmal (through its Chairman Sharad Kashiram Kalnawat) [FA 224/2018]; 2. Manoj Barlota & 8 Others [FA 225/2018]
Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner, Assistant Charity Commissioner, Narayan Tikle, Ramakant Kolte & Others (objectors)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeals against the order of District Judge setting aside Joint Charity Commissioner's order and restoring rejection of Change Report of a charitable trust.
Remedy Sought
Appellants seek quashing of District Judge's order and acceptance of Change Report.
Filing Reason
The reporting trustee filed Change Report which was rejected by Assistant Charity Commissioner; Joint Charity Commissioner allowed appeal; District Judge set aside Joint Charity Commissioner's order, leading to appeals to High Court.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected Change Report; Joint Charity Commissioner allowed appeal and accepted Change Report; District Judge quashed Joint Charity Commissioner's order and restored rejection.
Issues
Whether the notice for the General Body meeting dated 5.12.2005 complied with the bye-laws of the trust, particularly the 15-day notice requirement.
Whether the reporting trustee had authority to issue notice for the meeting.
Whether the induction of new life members in the meeting dated 5.12.2005 was legal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that there is no specific provision in the bye-laws regarding election of life members and that previously short notices were issued, so the meeting called on 5.12.2005 was legal and proper.
Respondents/objectors argued that bye-laws require 15 days’ notice for General body meeting; the President is authorized to issue notice, not the Secretary; notice was issued only three days before meeting; no proper agenda for election of new members; and the subsequent ratification of minutes was illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
The Assistant Charity Commissioner recorded its findings holding that the notice for meeting dt.5.12.2005 was not issued before 15 days of the said meeting as per bye-laws of the Society and therefore, induction of new life members i.e. appellants in First Appeal No.225 of 2018 is illegal.
The joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati in Appeal No.29 of 2007, vide order dt.13.9.2007 quashed and set aside the Judgment of Assistant Charity Commissioner and accepted the Change Report holding that previously short notices were issued and therefore, notice issued for the meeting dt.5.12.2005 is legal and proper.
He has pointed out clauses (7), (8), (12), (13) and (14) of the bye-laws and submitted that, as per clause (14), the General body meeting is to be called after giving 15 days’ notice once in a year.
Procedural History
Change Report filed by Ramesh Dongre; Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected Change Report; Appeal to Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati (Appeal No.29 of 2007) allowed and Change Report accepted; Objectors filed M.J.C. No.72 of 2007 before District Judge; Adhoc District Judge-1, Yavatmal quashed Joint Charity Commissioner's order and restored Assistant Charity Commissioner's order; Hence First Appeals to High Court.
