9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Rule 7(A) and the earlier Rule 7 are violative of Section 2(b) of the Act. 2. Whether the aforesaid Rules are harsh and unconscionable. 3. Whether the consequential directions issued by the High Court are justified in law. Summary: Issue 1: Whether Rule 7(A) and the earlier Rule 7 are violative of Section 2(b) of the Act. The Supreme Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the scheme of the impugned Rules. Section 2(b) defines a "member" and includes the requirement of paying a subscription. Rule 7(A) stipulates that an ordinary member who fails to pay the subscription by the end of March will automatically cease to be a member. The Court found that Rule 7(A) aligns with Section 2(b) because it ensures that a member must pay the subscription to remain on the roll for the year in question. The Court concluded that Rule 7(A) is not violative of Section 2(b) and runs parallel to it. Issue 2: Whether the aforesaid Rules are harsh and unconscionable. The Court considered whether Rule 7(A) is harsh and arbitrary. It noted that the Rule provides a clear timeframe for payment and that members are aware of the consequences of non-payment. The Court found that the Rule is not harsh as it operates within the knowledge of the members. However, the Court also recognized that in cases where a member has a valid reason for non-payment or disputes the non-payment, the society must consider such defenses. The Rule was read down to allow members to present their case before the society within the concerned year, thus ensuring it is not unreasonable or arbitrary. Issue 3: Whether the consequential directions issued by the High Court are justified in law. Given the findings on the first two issues, the Supreme Court held that the consequential directions issued by the High Court cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed subject to the reading down of Rule 7(A). The appellant-society was directed to comply with Rule 7(A) in future transactions, considering the reading down of the Rule. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the interim order was vacated, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The writ petitions stood dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant-society must comply with Rule 7(A) subject to the reading down as per the Supreme Court's judgment.
|
