9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Right to Convene Meeting and Amend Rules 2. Legality of Office Bearers' Continuation 3. Injunction Against Office Bearers 4. Appointment of Administrator/Receiver 5. Validity of Consent Order 6. Jurisdiction of Appellate Court Detailed Analysis: 1. Right to Convene Meeting and Amend Rules: The respondents, members and office-bearers of Mohan Bagan Athletic Club, convened a Special General Meeting to amend the Club Rules for increasing the subscription. The appellants filed a suit challenging the respondents' right to amend the rules and their continuation as office bearers, claiming their term expired in 1980. 2. Legality of Office Bearers' Continuation: The appellants sought a declaration that the respondents' occupation as office-bearers and members of the Executive Committee was illegal post-1980. They argued that the respondents had no right under the Club Rules to function in these capacities. 3. Injunction Against Office Bearers: The appellants sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from acting as office bearers and from holding any meeting to amend the Club Rules until a fresh Executive Committee was elected according to law. An interim injunction was granted on 29th March 1982, preventing the respondents from giving effect to any amendments. 4. Appointment of Administrator/Receiver: The appellants requested the appointment of an Administrator or Receiver to manage the Club's affairs. The court appointed Mr. Abhijit Deb as Receiver without security and remuneration, directing him to handle the difference in subscription rates and deposit the amount in a nationalized bank. 5. Validity of Consent Order: The respondents obtained an order on 6th May 1983, by consent, allowing them not to deposit further amounts with the Receiver, arguing financial difficulties. The appellants later challenged this order, claiming their Advocate on record, Mr. P. N. Mukherjee, consented without proper authority and was misled by the respondents. The court examined whether the consent was given in good faith and for the benefit of the appellants, finding no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence. 6. Jurisdiction of Appellate Court: The appellants contended that the Appellate Bench presided over by Pyne J. had no jurisdiction to pass the order on 6th May 1983, after the appeal was disposed of. The court held that since the Receiver was not discharged, the Appellate Bench retained jurisdiction to give directions, including the order of discharging the Receiver. The court found that the order was within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Bench. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appellants' application, finding no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence in obtaining the consent order. The court also held that the Appellate Bench had jurisdiction to pass the order on 6th May 1983. The Receiver, Mr. Abhijit Deb, was discharged, and Mr. Sovendra Kumar Mitra was appointed as the new Receiver. The court emphasized that the order did not determine the merits of the case.
|
