1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 21.APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.23/2010 WITH CA NO.2109 OF 2010 ... (Dr.Vedprakash s/o Kashirao Patil vs. Bhimrao Gynoji Nirwal and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel, with Mr.S.T.Ghute, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. P.D.Bachate, Adv., h/f Mr. A.B.Girase and Mr.S.B.Kulkarni, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:3-3-2010 P.C.:- 1. By consent of the learned Counsel for respective parties, heard finally. 2. The controversy revolves to an educational trust carrying out activities by conducting at least 35 schools under the banner of Sanjivani Education Society/trust. The appellant/plaintiff filed a trust suit No.1/2010 before the 2 learned District Judge, at Parbhani, staking a claim for temporary injunction, to convene or hold general body meeting proposed by virtue of a public notification dt.1st Jan.,2010, on 17th Jan.,2010. The learned Principal District Judge, by his order dt.15th Jan.,2010, did not accept contentions of the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction for preventing the defendants from holding general body meeting on 17th Jan.,2010 and the aggrieved plaintiff is in the present Appeal From Order, being dissatisfied with the said order of learned Principal District Judge, Parbhani. 3. The activities of the educational trust shall naturally be governed by duly approved constitution which, indeed, is tendered at page no.27 onwards, the name of the society shall be Sanjivani Education Society. It provides inbuilt arrangement as to the several definitions, founder members, permanent member, retired 3 permanent members, donor honourary members, subscriber member, life member, office bearers. Clause 11 provides for procedure of election. Clause 13 deals with functions of general body. Clause 14 deals with Governing Council, clause No.15 deals with functions of Governing Council, clause 16 deals with the meetings of Governing Council, clause 17 deals with the constitution of the governing body. The duties and powers of the President incorporate as under: "DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT: President is the Principal executive of the society, he will preside over the meeting of the general body and Governing Council. He will convene the special meeting of the Governing Council and General Body whenever necessary. In case of Council and General body emergency he shall take all such steps as may be required to safeguard the interest of the Society and seek the approval from the General Body/Governing Council at its next meeting. 4 On the event of continued absence of a member of Governing Council in consecutive three meetings, the President shall drop the member from the Governing Council. " A clear message thereby is sent at the time of formation of the trust that all the activities concerning convening general body or governing Council shall be under the powers of the President. He will convene such special meeting of the Governing Council and general body whenever necessary. Clause 12(M) indicates a special meeting or the general body meeting may be called by president on the requisition signed by one third of the total strength of General Body members with a short notice of (5) days. 4. Thus, I find the constitution of the trust provides a well knit system to convene general body meeting. The publication in the local newspaper dt.1.1.2010, apparently and prima facie is not in tune with the constitution of the trust. The so called members 5 were indeed not the valid/ recognized members of the trust. They were required to send a requisition to the president of the trust, in terms of clause (M) indicated above, however, no such exercise is carried. In the situation, I am of the opinion that the meeting dt.17th Jan.,2010 could not be legally permitted to be transacted. These are prima facie observations. 5. It is apparent, learned Principal District Judge, while rejecting the prayer for injunction, permitted holding of the general body which has naturally taken certain decisions on 17th Jan.,2010. 6. During the course of submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff accepted that the plaintiff will have to take proper recourse to challenge all the resolutions or even convening the general body in competent fora. In view of this, he did not further stress 6 challenge to the order of learned Principal District Judge, dt.15th Jan.,2010, rejecting the injunction application. In the backdrop, the Appeal From Order is disposed of. The order under challenge is not interfered with. However, rejection of Exh.5 will not curtail the rights and remedies of the plaintiff to adopt proper procedure. Civil Application disposed of. Needless to add, the observation of learned Principal District Judge about competency of the plaintiff to hold the office or the so called illegalities or delay in change report will not come in the way of contemplated action of the plaintiff. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/23-10ao