http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1554 of 2007

PETITIONER: Nanshibhai S/o Ganeshbhai Mirani

RESPONDENT: Bhupendra P. Popat & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/03/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 24675 of 2005)   

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered  by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court  allowing prayer made by respondent No.1 for certain  directions and directing to have a fresh meeting of  Sri  Lohana Mahaparishad (hereinafter referred to as the  ’Mahaparishad’).  

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

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 the details of  23 agenda items were circulated to more than 650  members and the meeting was fixed at Ahmedabad on  3.7.2005. The 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  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.1 Sri  Bhupendra P. Popat 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.1 Sri

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.1. It was highlighted that after the new  governing body was elected, the question of the old body  whose  term had expired on 31.12.2004 could not have  taken any decision. The High Court accepted that the old  governing body was the only body which could 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.   

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 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.1 Sri Bhupendra P. Popat at the behest of  Shri Chitwani who lost presidential election had filed  application in a  disposed of case. The High Court had  erroneously entertained the application. 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 as these items are  concerned.   

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 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.

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 the  maintainability of the application filed by respondent no.1  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.

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