Holding

The High Court erred by not considering the scope of reopening the matter and the effect of the resolutions, and the appeal is disposed of with the matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard a civil appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that a fresh General Body Meeting of Sri Lohana Mahaparishad be held to consider remaining agenda items after a consent order had directed a meeting. The appellant argued that the newly elected governing body, not the old one, could validly take decisions on the remaining items, while the respondent contended that only the old governing body retained authority. The High Court had held that the old governing body was the sole authority, but the Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider two crucial aspects: the scope of reopening the matter after the consent order and the effect of the resolutions passed on 4 September 2005. Consequently, the Supreme Court remitted the case to the High Court for fresh consideration of these points, without expressing any opinion on the merits, and disposed of the appeal without an order as to costs.

Issues considered

The scope of reopening a case after a consent order has been passed.
The authority of a newly elected governing body to decide on agenda items previously pending under a consent order.
The effect of resolutions adopted in a subsequent meeting on the validity of decisions.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Subjects

trustgoverning bodyconsent ordergeneral body meetingelectioncivil procedurereopening caseresolutionshigh courtsupreme court

Judgment

+
A NANSHIBHAI S/O GANESHBHAI MIRANI
v.
BHUPENDRA P. POPAT AND ANR.

MARCH 23, 2007

B [DR. ARillT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, 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 offew 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
D
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
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. Vithlani for the
Appellant.'

Rajeev N. Narula and Hardeep Singh Anand for the Respondents.
H
+
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned
Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing prayer made by respondent
B NoJ for certain directions and directing to have a fresh meeting of Sri Lohana
Mahaparishad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mahaparishad').

3. A brief reference as projected by the appellant to the factual aspects
would suffice.

C 4. A suit was filed relating to the function of Mahaparishad. On the
basis of the consent order i.e. in an appeal from the order No.427/2005 the
High Court directed to have a General Body Meeting containing 23 Agendas
including the agenda for holding the election of President of the Mahaparishad
and four trustees .. The suit was accordingly disposed of. A Court
Commissioner was appointed and the agenda notice containing ~he details of
D 23 agenda items were circulated to more than 650 members and the meeting
was fixed at Ahmedabad on 3.7.2005. Thf. meeting of the Madhyastha Maha
Samiti (in short 'Maha Samiti') of Mahaparishad was held. 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 no.22 pertaining to election of the
E President was taken up first after first formal agendas. Shri Jayantilal Govindji
Kundalia was elected as a President and four persons including one T.R.
Chitwani were elected as trustees. It is to be noted that in the election for the
post of President and trustees both Shri Kundalia and Shri Chitwani were
contesters. As noted earlier Shri Kundalia was elected as President while Shri
Chitwani was elected as a trustee. Respondent no.I Sri Bhupendra P. Popat
F was the Chief Polling Agent of Shri Chitwani. · It is not disputed that
considering the paucity of time the meeting was adjourned for consideration
of the remaining agenda items at the later date. According to appellant after
due notice to all the members the meeting was held on 4.9.2005 and the
remaining items of agenda were considered and adopted. Respondent no. I
G Sri Bhupendra P. Popat filed an application making grievance that the decision
could not have been taken at a subsequent meeting and it was only the earlier
Board which could have taken up the remaining agenda items and not the
newly elected governing body. The appellant questioned correctness of the
acceptability of the stand of the respondent no. I. It was highlighted that after
the new governing body was elected, th~ question of the old body whose
H term had expired ~n 31.12.2004 could not have taken any decision. The High
+
I

NANSHIBHAIS/OGANESHBHAIMIRAN!v.BHUPENDRAP.POPAT[PASAYAT,J.] 401
Court accepted that the old governing body was the only body which could A
have taken the decision so far as the remaining items of the agenda are
concerned and, therefore, there was violation .of the specific order as contained
in the -Consent order.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has
clearly fallen into error by holding that it was the old body which had to take B
the decision. That would put the clock back and process of the election of
the new body would be an exercise in futility. In fact, there was a meeting
held on 4.9.2005 where after due notice to eligible persons, decisions were
taken. Respondent no. l Sri Bhupendra P. Popat at the behest of Shri Chitwani
who lost presidential election had filed application in a disposed of case. The C
High Court had erroneously entertained the application.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondents held that various
". vital agenda items were to be 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 D
as these items are concerned.

7. We find that 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 E
held on 4.9.2005. It is the stand of the appellant that due notice was given
to the respondents and all eligible members and the resolutions were adopted
after thorough discussion.

8. We do not think it proper to say anything about the effect of the
resolutions/decisions. It would be appropriate for the High Court to consider F
the maintainability of the application filed by respondent no. I in the matter
and the effect of resolutions taken on 4.9.2005, if it comes to hold that the
application was maintainable. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the High
Court for fresh consideration of the aforesaid two aspects for which we
. express no opinion.
G
9. Since the matter is of urgency, we request the High Court to dispose

- of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of order.

IO. The appeal is disposed of accorJingly with no order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeal disposed of. H