1962 (12) TMI 99 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Lodge Victoria to decide on masonic offences.
2. Compliance with procedural rules under Law 198.
3. Alleged bias and violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Jurisdiction of civil courts to review decisions of private associations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Lodge Victoria to Decide on Masonic Offences:

The appellant contended that Lodge Victoria lacked jurisdiction to decide on masonic offences, arguing that such matters fell within the jurisdiction of the District Grand Lodge, Bombay. The relevant laws were examined:

- Law 198: Entitles every Daughter Lodge to try any member accused of an offence.
- Law 128: States that a Provincial or District Grand Lodge shall hear and determine all subjects of masonic complaint, dispute, or difference.
- Law 56: The Grand Lodge shall hear and determine all subjects of masonic complaint or irregularity.

The court determined that the term "offence" in Law 198 refers to the infringement of the Laws of the Daughter Lodge, and since the complaint, the appellant, and the members of the Lodge all proceeded on the basis that the appellant committed "offences," Lodge Victoria had jurisdiction. The court held that neither Law 128 nor Law 56 could oust the jurisdiction expressly conferred on the Daughter Lodge. Therefore, Lodge Victoria had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint against the appellant.

2. Compliance with Procedural Rules under Law 198:

The appellant argued that the procedural requirements under Law 198 were not strictly complied with, particularly regarding the timing of the notice for the special meeting. Law 198 requires that the matter of the complaint be brought before the Lodge for consideration and judgment after the answer is lodged or the time for lodging it expires. The court found that the notice issued to the members and the appellant was in compliance with the law, as it did not require the answer to be communicated to the members, only that the notice state the fact that the complaint and answer would be considered.

Regarding the 14-day notice period, the appellant was not given the entire period prescribed but did not raise any objection or request additional time. The court held that the appellant waived his right under the law by his conduct and could not now rely on the procedural defect to invalidate the proceedings.

3. Alleged Bias and Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The appellant contended that the members of the Lodge were both prosecutors and judges, violating the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the rules governing tribunals and courts cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to bodies like Lodges. The court emphasized that the appellant did not raise any objections to the members' participation in the meeting. The court concluded that in the circumstances of this case, the principles of natural justice were not violated, and the resolution passed by Lodge Victoria was valid.

4. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to Review Decisions of Private Associations:

The court reiterated that civil courts have limited jurisdiction to review decisions of private associations like Lodges. The courts cannot sit as a court of appeal from such decisions but can set aside the order if the body acts without jurisdiction, in bad faith, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court found that both the lower courts had held that the Daughter Lodge acted in good faith, and there were no exceptional circumstances to depart from the practice of not interfering with concurrent findings of fact.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of Lodge Victoria, finding no procedural irregularities or violations of natural justice principles. The jurisdiction of civil courts to review such decisions was limited, and the appellant's objections were found to be without merit.