1
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.509 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.657 OF 2010
1. Aryan Education Society
75 Jagannath Shankar Sheth Road,
Girgaon,
Mumbai 400 004.
2. Shivraj Laxman Bhujbale
Age : Adult,
R/o.Shriniwas, Ambedkar Nagar
Palghar 401 404
District Thane.
3. Shivaji Antu Mhatre
Age : Adult
R/o.Rouni Apartment, Block No.4,
Sopara Road, Bolinj,
Virar (W).
..Appellants
4. Shashikant Shripati Dalvi
Age : Adult
R/o.Shri Swami Samarth Apartment,
Room No.12, Katrap Dr.D.P.Road,
Badlapur (E) 421 503.
5. Sanjay Manmohan Masurkar
R/o.15/11/21 Magaldham,
Niketan Co.op.Hou.Soc.,
Near Tata Power House, MHB Colony,
Magathane, Borivali (E),
Mumbai 400 066.
6. Prabhakar Baburao Date
Age : Adult
R/o.C/o.Mr.Bhagat, BDD Chawl,
R.No.56, Building No.5, Sewri (W)
Mumbai 400 015.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:40 :::
2
7. Suresh Vitthal Ghadawale
Age : Adult
R/o.C/o.A.E.S.Sharda Sadan,
173 Sanjgiri Sadan, J.S.S.Road,
Mumbai 400 004.
8. Bhaskar (Amod) Yashwant Usapkar
Age : Adult
R/o.12 Urus Bldg., Dr.Bhalerao Marg,
J.S.Road, Girgaon,
Mumbai.
9. Dhanesh Ramchandra Kanetkar
Age : Adult
R/o.1/7 Goregaonkar Building,
Girgaon,ig
Mumbai 400 004.
10. Smt.Deepa Sachin Sankhe
Age : Adult
R/o.Bungalow No.1, Sushil Nagar,
Near Khaira Pathak, Bhoisar,
Palghar 401 404.
11. Smt.Sunita Ravindra Kalke
Age : Adult
R/o.Prakash Talkies Road,
Sunshine Apartment, 2nd floor,
C-wing, Palghar(W),
Thane.
12. Smt.Shobhana Ramesh Sonar
Age : Adult
Anandkirti, 402 Chendani,
Koliwada, Near Police
Marine Workshop,
Thane (E).
13. Smt.Nutan Vijay Patil
Age : Adult
Aslesha, C Wing, Phulpada Road,
Virar (E), Tal.Vasai,
Dist.Thane.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:40 :::
3
14. Vishwas Balkrishna Mokashi
Age : Adult
R/o.70/38/H, Kapreswar Marg,
Fanaswadi, Thakurdwar,
Mumbai 400 002.
15. Narayan Krishnaji Lavate
Age : Adult
Room No.19, Laxmibai Chawl,
Zawabawadi, Thakurdwar,
Mumbai 400 002.
16. Smt. Meena Anil Tongale
Age : Adult
R/o.406 Shri Sai Niwas, Samnagar
Dombivali (E),
Thane.
Versus
1. Sameer Narayan Bhoir
Age : Adult
R/o.210 Gholvira, Palghar,
Thane.
2. Mukesh Mohanbhai Patel
Age : Adult
R/o.Datta Nagar, Bhakti Kunj,
Tembhode Road, Palghar,
Thane.
3. Sandeep Kashinath Patil
Age : Adult
R/o.Krishna Colony, Lokmanya Nagar,
Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
4. Gangadhar Shamrao Phad
Age : Adult
R/o.Girish Nagar, Near Petrol Pump,
Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
..Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:40 :::
4
5. Kedar Shivkumar Kale
Age : Adult
R/o.Laxmi Janardhan, J.V.Kale Marg
Near Laxmi Temple, Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
6. Balkrishna Rangannath Varde
Age : Adult
R/o.102, 1st floor, King's Apartment,
Ananddarshan, Mahim Road,
Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
7. Upendra Moreshwar Gharat
Age : Adult
R/o.Post Navli, Sai Krupa Saw Mill,
Tal.Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
8. Sachin Sharadchandra Chitre
Age : Adult
R/o.Laxminath Niwas, Bldg.No.3
Civil Court Road, Lokmanya Nagar,
Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
9. Smt.Anuradha Manohar Narsale
Age : Adult
R/o.143/3, Navyug Nagar,
Dinanath Mangeshkar Marg,
Mumbai 400 036.
10. Nilkanth Bhaskar Namjoshi
Age : Adult
R/o.Gajanan Prasad, Mahim Road,
Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
11. Smt.Sulbha Gangadhar Shostri
Age : Adult
R/o.15, Jitekar Wadi, Thakurdwar,
Mumbai 400 004.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:40 :::
5
12. Gajanan Sambhaji Huddedar
Age : Adult
R/o.Shanbho, Ramnagar,
Palghar (E),
Dist.Thane.
13. Parmeshwar Pandurang Shinde
Age : Adult
R/o.A/301, Shikshal Mitra Mandal,
Shikshak Nagar, Plot B,
Co-op.School Society, L.B.S.Road,
Kurla (W),
Mumbai 400 070.
14. Smt.Lata Subhash Acharya
Age : Adult
R/o.Raghukul Hou.Soc., C Wing,
Block No.11/12, Near Gokul Hospital,
Mahim Road,
Palghar (W).
WITH
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.508 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.655 OF 2010
1. Aryan Education Society
75 Jagannath Shankar Sheth Road,
Girgaon,
Mumbai 400 004.
2. Shivraj Laxman Bhujbale
Age : Adult,
R/o.Shriniwas, Ambedkar Nagar
Palghar 401 404
District Thane.
3. Shivaji Antu Mhatre
Age : Adult
R/o.Rouni Apartment, Block No.4,
Sopara Road, Bolinj,
Virar (W). ..Appellants
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:40 :::
6
4. Shashikant Shripati Dalvi
Age : Adult
R/o.Shri Swami Samarth Apartment,
Room No.12, Katrap Dr.D.P.Road,
Badlapur (E) 421 503.
5. Sanjay Manmohan Masurkar
R/o.15/11/21 Magaldham,
Niketan Co.op.Hou.Soc.,
Near Tata Power House, MHB Colony,
Magathane, Borivali (E),
Mumbai 400 066.
6. Prabhakar Baburao Date
Age : Adult
R/o.C/o.Mr.Bhagat, BDD Chawl,
R.No.56, Building No.5, Sewri (W)
Mumbai 400 015.
7. Suresh Vitthal Ghadawale
Age : Adult
R/o.C/o.A.E.S.Sharda Sadan,
173 Sanjgiri Sadan, J.S.S.Road,
Mumbai 400 004.
8. Bhaskar (Amod) Yashwant Usapkar
Age : Adult
R/o.12 Urus Bldg., Dr.Bhalerao Marg,
J.S.Road, Girgaon,
Mumbai.
9. Dhanesh Ramchandra Kanetkar
Age : Adult
R/o.1/7 Goregaonkar Building,
Girgaon,
Mumbai 400 004.
10. Smt.Deepa Sachin Sankhe
Age : Adult
R/o.Bungalow No.1, Sushil Nagar,
Near Khaira Pathak, Bhoisar,
Palghar 401 404.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:40 :::
7
11. Smt.Sunita Ravindra Kalke
Age : Adult
R/o.Prakash Talkies Road,
Sunshine Apartment, 2nd floor,
C-wing, Palghar(W),
Thane.
12. Smt.Shobhana Ramesh Sonar
Age : Adult
Anandkirti, 402 Chendani,
Koliwada, Near Police
Marine Workshop,
Thane (E).
13. Smt.Nutan Vijay Patil
Age : Adult
Aslesha, C Wing, Phulpada Road,
Virar (E), Tal.Vasai,
Dist.Thane.
14. Vishwas Balkrishna Mokashi
Age : Adult
R/o.70/38/H, Kapreswar Marg,
Fanaswadi, Thakurdwar,
Mumbai 400 002.
15. Narayan Krishnaji Lavate
Age : Adult
Room No.19, Laxmibai Chawl,
Zawabawadi, Thakurdwar,
Mumbai 400 002.
16. Smt. Meena Anil Tongale
Age : Adult
R/o.406 Shri Sai Niwas, Samnagar
Dombivali (E),
Thane.
Versus
1. Mukesh Mohanbhai Patel
Age : Adult
R/o.Datta Nagar, Bhakti Kunj,
Tembhode Road, Palghar, Thane.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:41 :::
8
2. Sameer Narayan Bhoir
Age : Adult
R/o.210 Gholvira, Palghar,
Thane.
3. Sandeep Kashinath Patil
Age : Adult
R/o.Krishna Colony, Lokmanya Nagar,
Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
4. Gangadhar Shamrao Phad
Age : Adult
R/o.Girish Nagar, Near Petrol Pump,
Palghar,ig
Dist.Thane.
..Respondents
5. Kedar Shivkumar Kale
Age : Adult
R/o.Laxmi Janardhan, J.V.Kale Marg
Near Laxmi Temple, Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
6. Balkrishna Rangannath Varde
Age : Adult
R/o.102, 1st floor, King's Apartment,
Ananddarshan, Mahim Road,
Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
7. Upendra Moreshwar Gharat
Age : Adult
R/o.Post Navli, Sai Krupa Saw Mill,
Tal.Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
8. Sachin Sharadchandra Chitre
Age : Adult
R/o.Laxminath Niwas, Bldg.No.3
Civil Court Road, Lokmanya Nagar,
Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:41 :::
9
9. Smt.Anuradha Manohar Narsale
Age : Adult
R/o.143/3, Navyug Nagar,
Dinanath Mangeshkar Marg,
Mumbai 400 036.
10. Nilkanth Bhaskar Namjoshi
Age : Adult
R/o.Gajanan Prasad, Mahim Road,
Palghar,
Dist.Thane.
11. Smt.Sulbha Gangadhar Shostri
Age : Adult
R/o.15, Jitekar Wadi, Thakurdwar,
Mumbai 400 004.
12. Gajanan Sambhaji Huddedar
Age : Adult
R/o.Shanbho, Ramnagar,
Palghar (E),
Dist.Thane.
13. Parmeshwar Pandurang Shinde
Age : Adult
R/o.A/301, Shikshal Mitra Mandal,
Shikshak Nagar, Plot B,
Co-op.School Society, L.B.S.Road,
Kurla (W),
Mumbai 400 070.
14. Smt.Lata Subhash Acharya
Age : Adult
R/o.Raghukul Hou.Soc., C Wing,
Block No.11/12, Near Gokul Hospital,
Mahim Road,
Palghar (W).
Mr.R.S.Apte, Senior Counsel with
Mr.S.V.Gavand, Advocate, for the Appellants
Mr.N.D.Jaywant, Advocate, for the Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:02:41 :::
10
CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE : 22ND JUNE, 2010
JUDGMENT
. By these two Appeals the Appellant
Education Society takes exception to the
common order passed by the learned Judge, City
Civil Court, Greater Bombay on Notices of
Motion No.16 of 2010 in Short Cause Suit No.
2828 of 2009 & Notice of Motion No.17 of 2010
in Short Cause Suit No.2827 of 2009.
2. The Plaintiffs in the two Suits were
President and Secretary of the Appellant-
Education Society. It was alleged that they
had asked for donations for the Society
without any authorization from the Management
while recruiting teachers for Schools run by
the Society. The Managing Committee,
therefore, discussed the conduct of the
Plaintiffs in the two suits from time to time,
and, in the meeting dated 1st December, 2009,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:02:41 :::
11
removed the two Plaintiffs from the membership
of the Society. Aggrieved thereby, the
Plaintiffs approached the City Civil Court by
filing two suits and by taking out two Notices
of Motion prayed for injunction restraining
the Appellant-Society from implementing the
Resolution whereby names of the two Plaintiffs
were removed from the membership of the
Society and
ig from preventing the Plaintiffs
from discharging duties of their posts.
3. These Notice of Motions were contested
by the Appellant-Society, who filed
appropriate replies wherein it is also stated
that the Society had already filled up the
posts of the two Plaintiffs. In course of
hearing of the Appeals, it was pointed out
that the period of Managing Committee had come
to an end and therefore, fresh elections were
scheduled to be held shortly. Maintainability
of the suit without obtaining permission under
Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act was
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:02:41 :::
12
raised as a ground. But it was not
specifically pressed.
4. After hearing the parties the learned
Judge held that the Plaintiffs in the two
Suits had established prima facie case and
that the balance of convenience was in their
favour. He, therefore, proceeded to allow
Notices of Motion and granted injunctions as
prayed for by the Plaintiffs. Aggrieved
thereby, the Society is before this Court.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for
the parties at sufficient length and also
allowed them time to attempt an amicable
settlement. The contention of the learned
Counsel for the Appellants, that the learned
Trial Judge erred in granting the reliefs to
the Plaintiffs, erroneously holding that the
Plaintiffs did not have adequate notice of
their proposed expulsion, has to be rejected.
Though, the learned Counsel for the Appellants
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:02:41 :::
13
was at pains to point out from the Minutes of
various Meetings held that the conduct of the
Plaintiffs was discussed, the Agendas of none
of these Meetings show that the question of
expulsion of the Appellants was at any time
put on the Agenda.
6. It appears from the proceedings of the
Meeting which have been placed on record that
the Respondents in fact expressed regrets for
what had happened. In the Meeting dated 1st
December, 2009 for the first time a reference
was made to Clause 12(o) of the Memorandum of
the Association which reads as under:-
(o) To supervise and control
generally the conduct of all the
employees of the Society and to
remove as accasion may require, on
reasonable grounds, the name of any
Member from the rolls of the Societyby a majority of two-thirds of the
Members present, or take such other
steps in that behalf as the Council
may deem expedient.
The question is not whether the Committee had
the power to initiate action against the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:02:41 :::
14
Plaintiffs. The question is whether that
power was properly exercised. As rightly
observed by the learned Trial Judge, it was
impermissible for the Appellants to have a
Resolution passed in a Meeting without placing
such a subject on the Agenda. Removal of a
member from membership of the Society is a
serious matter and unless principles of
natural
justice are fully complied such
expulsion would not be readily accepted by the
Courts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
learned Trial Judge erred in restraining the
Appellants from acting on a Resolution passed
in a Meeting dated 1st December, 2009, even
though the injunction issued may take the
character of final relief granted at ad-
interim stage. In such matters, if relief is
not immediately granted the lis itself may
become infructuous with passage of time.
Even, now, the Appellants are in the process
of holding elections and therefore, the entire
scenario would change by keeping the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:02:41 :::
15
Plaintiffs out of the fray. In this glaring
case of failure to follow principles of
natural justice, it cannot be said that
discretion exercised by the learned Trial
Judge calls for any interference by this
Court. The learned Trial Judge rightly held
that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie
case and would suffer irreparable loss, if the
injunction was not granted in their favour.
6. Both the Appeals are, therefore,
dismissed.
(R.C.CHAVAN, J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:02:41 :::