TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (12) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Grand Lodge and is governed by the Constitution and Laws of the latter. 3. The appellant was a member of the Lodge Victoria, having joined it in the year 1948. On October 16, 1952, the second respondent made a complaint against the appellant to the Master, Lodge Victoria, alleging that the appellant was guilty of 12 masonic offences. It was alleged therein that, as the appellant had committed masonic offences, he should be tried by the Lodge for the charges levelled against him under Law 198 of the Constitution. On October 20, 1952, notice of the said complaint was issued to the appellant and he was required to send to the Secretary of the Lodge his answers to the charges within 14 days from the date of the notice. He was also informed that he was entitled to be present and to state his defence at the special meeting to be held on November 8, 1952. On the same day, the Secretary of the Lodge sent notices to all the members of the Lodge asking them to attend the said special meeting convened for considering and passing judgment on the said complaint. On October 27, 1952, the appellant submitted his answer in extenso to the various charges levelled against him in the complaint; in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plainant, the second defendant; the Secretary of the Lodge, the third defendant; and the District Grand Lodge, Bombay, the fourth defendant. The defendants contested the suit. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the appellant to the High Court of Mysore was also dismissed. The present appeal has been filed on a certificate issued by the said High Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised before us all the contentions which his client had unsuccessfully raised in the courts below. Before we advert to the said contentions it would be convenient to notice briefly the law on the subject relevant to the present enquiry. 5. The source of the power of associations like clubs and lodges to expel their members is the contract on the basis of which they become members. This principle has been restated by Lord Morton in Bonsor v. Musicians' Union (1956) A.C. 104. There, one Bonsor, who became a member of a trade union, was expelled. In that context Lord Morton observed : "When Mr. Bonsor applied to join the respondent union, and his application was accepted, a contract came into existence between Mr. Bonsor and the respondent, whereby Mr. Bons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same effect the Judicial Committee observed in L.A.P.O.' Beilly v. C. C. Gittens, A.I.R. (1949) P.C. 313 "It is important to bear in mind that neither the learned Judge nor their Lordships' Board is entitled to sit as a Court of appeal from the decisions of a domestic tribunal such as the Stewards of the Trinidad Turf Club". 12. Later on the Privy Council stated : "All these matters, however, are essentially matters for this domestic tribunal to decide as it thinks right. Provided that the tribunal does not exceed its jurisdiction and acts honestly and in good faith, the Court cannot intervene, even if it thinks that the penalty is severe or that a very strict standard has been applied". 13. Another aspect which may also be noticed is how far and to what extent the doctrine of bias may be invoked in the case of domestic tribunals like those of clubs. The observations of Maugham J. in Maclean's case (1929) 1 Ch. 602 in this context may be noticed. The learned Judge observed in that case thus : "A person who joins in association governed by rules under which he may be expelled,............................ has in my judgment no legal right ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de for expulsion, he shall be expelled only in the manner provided by the rules. (2) The lodge is bound to act strictly according to the rules, whether a particular rule is mandatory or directory falls to be decided in each case, having regard to the well settled rules of construction in that regard. (3) The jurisdiction of civil court is rather limited; it cannot obviously sit as a court of appeal from decisions of such a body; it can set aside the order of such a body, if the said body acts without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith or acts in violation of the principles of natural justice as explained in the decisions cited supra. 17. Bearing the said principles in mind, we shall now proceed to consider the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. 18. The first contention is that Lodge Victoria has no jurisdiction to decide on the question whether a member committed a masonic offence, for, it is said, such offences are within the jurisdiction of a District Grand Lodge, Bombay. The question falls to be decided on a construction of the relevant Laws of the Lodge : The said Laws read : Law 198. Every Daughter Lodge shall be entitled to try any member accused of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. In special circumstances, Grand Committee, through Grand Secretary, may extend the period within which an appeal may be made. Law 128 : A Provincial or District Grand Lodge shall hear and determine all subjects of masonic complaint, dispute, or difference initiated before or appealed or remitted to it respecting Daughter Lodges or brethren of the Scotish Craft within the Province or District, and may admonish, or pronounce a sentence of suspension, and, in the case of a Lodge, may suspend its Charter. The procedure in all such subjects of complaint, dispute, or difference shall be regulated mutatis mutandis by Laws 104 to 111 inclusive. Law 56 : The Grand Lodge shall hear and determine, through its Grand Committee as hereinbefore provided, all subjects of Masonic complaint or irregularity respecting Lodges or Brethren within the jurisdiction, and may proceed to admonish, or fine, or suspend, or expel. Under Law 198, every Daughter Lodge will be entitled to try any member accused of an offence; under Law 128, a Provincial or District Grand Lodge shall hear and determine all subjects of masonic dispute or difference initiated before it respecting the brethren of the Scotis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the special meeting of the Lodge it was held that the charges have been established; and on that basis punishment was imposed on the appellant. The appellant did not take any objection either that the allegations did not amount to "offences" within the meaning of law 198 or that the Lodge had no jurisdiction to decide whether he committed the offences. It is, therefore, manifest that all the parties concerned in the matter accepted the position that if the acts alleged to have been committed by the appellants were established, he would have committed "offences" under the laws. If the allegations against the appellant amounted to "offences" Law 198 is immediately attracted. If that be so, neither Law 128 nor Law 56, which deal with the jurisdiction of a District Grand Lodge in respect of "masonic complaints", can oust the jurisdiction expressly conferred on the Daughter Lodge. We, therefore, hold that the Daughter Lodge had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the appellant and decide it on merits. 21. The next question is, whether Law 198 has been strictly complied with. Relevant part of Law 198 reads ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to appear at the meeting and any adjournment thereof and state his defence." It is contended that under the said part of the Law, the accused is entitled to have another 14 days after he filed his answer to enable him to file his case before the Lodge and that in the instant case no such additional period was given to him. That is so. The position, therefore, is that the appellant was given notice of the hearing as required by the law, but he was not given the entire period prescribed thereunder. The question is whether this error in the procedure vitiated the trial. It is obvious that the appellant was not prejudiced. He never made a complaint of it. Indeed in his answer he made it clear that he would not be present at the inquiry. The Law itself enabled him to apply for further time, but he did not ask for it, as he did not want to appear at the meeting. He did not raise this objection either in the appeal before the District Grand Lodge or in the second appeal before the Grand Lodge of Scotland. Before the said appellate Lodges he took the decision on merits. Indeed, by his answer and subsequent conduct he clearly waived the said requirement of the Law. Can he now be allo....