TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Registrar of Societies lacks jurisdiction to void amendments; disputes should be addressed in civil suit</h1> The court held that the Registrar of Societies lacked jurisdiction to declare the amendments void, emphasizing that such disputes should be addressed in ... Jurisdiction - petitioner claims that the Registrar has no power to declare any amendments to its Rules and Regulations as void or nonest - whether the Registrar had the power to adjudicate the disputes raised by the petitioner? - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the plain reading of the sections 12, 12A, 12B and 12C of the Act read with section 3 of the Act that the Registrar does not have any power to adjudicate any issues with regard to the amendment of any purpose or object of the society. However, in terms of Section 12A of the Act, the Registrar has the power to review registration of the change in name of a society if in its opinion the same resembles or is identical to the name of any existing society. Plainly, the Act as applicable to Delhi does not include any provision which entitles the Registrar to cancel a registration once the same has been granted - there is also no provision which empowers the Registrar to examine and adjudicate any dispute with regard to any alleged irregularity in the procedure adopted by the society to amend its Rules and Regulations. This Court is not inclined to examine the question whether the certificate for registration of the amendments in the Rules and Regulations was obtained from the Registrar by playing a fraud and thus could be revoked. This is so because no such reason has been referred to by the Registrar for passing the impugned order; the impugned order has not been passed on the basis that any fraud had been perpetuated on the Registrar - It is apparent that in this case the Registrar has not proceeded on the basis that it had been defrauded into granting approval/certificate. On the contrary, the Registrar has proceeded on the basis that 'there were certain irregularities in approving/certifying the amendments'. Undisputedly, the same cannot be construed as a finding of fraud. The respondent no 3 has already instituted a suit challenging the amendments made to the petitioner‟s Rules and Regulations and the issues raised before the Registrar can be examined in those proceedings - petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and authority of the Registrar of Societies to declare amendments void.2. Compliance with procedural requirements for amending the Rules and Regulations.3. Allegations of irregularities and fraud in the amendment process.4. Pending civil suit and its implications on the Registrar's order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Registrar of Societies:The petitioner contested the Registrar's power to declare amendments to its Rules and Regulations as void or nonest. The court analyzed Sections 1, 2, 3, 12, 12A, 12B, and 12C of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable in Delhi, and concluded that the Registrar does not have the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding amendments to the society's purposes or objects. The court referenced a Division Bench decision in *Dushyant Sharma v. Haryana Wrestling Association* which clarified that Section 12 only pertains to altering or amending a society's objects and purposes, not its Rules and Regulations.2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Amending the Rules and Regulations:The petitioner claimed that all amendments to its Rules and Regulations were duly approved by its members and registered with the Registrar. The respondent alleged that due notices for meetings to approve these amendments were not served, rendering the resolutions invalid. The court noted that the Registrar's impugned order was based on these alleged irregularities without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.3. Allegations of Irregularities and Fraud in the Amendment Process:The respondent argued that the amendments were obtained through fraud, referencing decisions from the Madras High Court and Allahabad High Court. However, the court emphasized that the Registrar's order did not cite fraud as a reason for declaring the amendments void. Instead, it mentioned 'certain irregularities,' which cannot be equated to fraud. The court stressed that allegations of fraud must be specifically pleaded and established.4. Pending Civil Suit and Its Implications on the Registrar's Order:The respondent had already filed a civil suit challenging the amendments and his expulsion from the society. The court highlighted that the Registrar had taken a stand in the civil suit that he had no power to interfere in the society's day-to-day functioning and would abide by the court's judgment. Given the pending suit, the court found that the issues raised before the Registrar could be examined in those proceedings.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Registrar lacked the jurisdiction to declare the amendments void and set aside the impugned order. The court noted that the disputes regarding the amendments could be addressed in the pending civil suit. The petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of, with parties bearing their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
