Delhi District Court
Vinod Kumar Dhanda And Ors vs The Safdarjang Club And Ors on 12 February, 2026
DLST010046002016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS DJ. 209089/2016
Filing No. 28925/2016
CNR No. DLST01-0046002016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Vinod Kumar Dhanda
S/o Late Sh OP Dhanda
R/o A2/10, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029
Sh. Ved Prakash Verma (deceased)
S/o Sh Jaidev Verma
R/o B-4/69 Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029 (deleted from array of parties on 19.01.2017)
Sh. Chanderkant Gupta
S/o Sh R.K Gupta
R/o B-1/45, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029
......Plaintiffs
VERSUS
The Safdarjung Club
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
(Registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860)
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 1 of 41
Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors
Digitally signed
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:38:13 +0530
Through its Hony. General Secretary,
Sh Ajay Avinashi
Mr. Ajay Avinashi
Hony. General Secretary
Safdarjung Club
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
Mr. S.C. Kumar
President, Sardarjung Club
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
.......Defendants
Date of Institution : 25.08.2010
Date of reserving the judgment : 12.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026
Decision : Suit Decreed
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS................................................4
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS.............................................8
III. ISSUES FRAMED...................................................................................... 10
IV. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PLAINTIFFS..................................................11
V. EVIDENCE LED BY DEFENDANTS........................................................13
VI. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS..........................13
VII. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS.....................24
VIII. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO.............................28
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 2 of 41
Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors
Arul Digitally signed
by Arul Varma
Date: 2026.02.12
Varma 18:38:19 +0530
i. Issue no 1: Whether the elections for the Managing Committee of
defendants No 1 held on 29.08.2010 are illegal, as alleged in the
plaint?..............................................................................................28
ii. Issue no 2: Whether the Memorandum of Association of
defendants no 1 was amended in the year 1977?............................28
iii. Issue no 3: If issue no 2 is proved, whether the plaintiff are
stopped from challenging the amendment made in the year 1977? 38
iv. Issue no 4: Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material
facts and, if so, to what effect?........................................................38
v. Issue no 5: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief
claimed in the suit?..........................................................................38
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 3 of 41
Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors
Arul Digitally signed by
Arul Varma
Varma Date: 2026.02.12
18:38:22 +0530
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS
1.The present lis has primarily been filed seeking a declaration to the effect that the elections to the Managing Committee of Defendant No.1/Safdarjung Club be held only by way of secret ballot, unless otherwise decided by the General Body. The facts as asseverated by the Plaintiffs are hereby succinctly recapitulated:
(a) The plaintiffs are members of Defendant No.1/The Safdarjung Club ('the Club'). Defendant No.2/ Mr. Ajay Avinashi and Defendant No. 3/ Mr. S.C Kumar are the Hony. General Secretary and President respectively of the Club.
(b) It was asserted that the elections to the Managing Committee of the Club would be held on 29.08.2010, and the plaintiffs have sought a relief that the said elections should be held strictly in accordance with the Memorandum of Association and concomitant Rules and Regulations, dated 04.01.1973 i.e Ex PW4/1 (collectively referred to as 'Original MoA')
(c) According to the plaintiffs, manner of elections is laid down in Rule 6 (c) of Original MoA, which is as follows:
"6. Election of the Managing Committee
(c) The election shall be by secret ballot otherwise or as approved by the General Body during the meeting."
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 4 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:38:25 +0530
(d) It was contended that that the Original MoA provides for election by secret ballot. If any other mode is to be followed, then the same has to be approved by the General body during a meeting called for the said purpose and in accordance with the Original MoA.
(e) It was categorically emphasized that there were no amendments to the Original MoA.
(f) The plaintiffs obtained the authenticated copy of the Original MoA on 17.08.2010, duly certified under Section 19 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said section stipulates that copies certified by the Registrar shall be prima facie evidence of the matters contained therein in all legal proceedings.
(g) It was alleged that proxy system of voting is being implemented by Defendant No.2 & Defendant No.3, as is apparent from letter dated 03.08.2010 issued by the Club whereby the time schedule for elections of the Managing Committee were announced. It was specifically alleged that there was no mention of voting by secret ballot in the said letter, rather a proxy form was enclosed which would give an impression that the election is only through proxy voting.
(h) The Plaintiffs further averred that despite the fact that Rule 6(c) of the Original MoA prohibits proxy voting, defendants No. 2 /the Hony. General Secretary and other CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 5 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:38:29
+0530
office bearers allegedly introduced a proxy system to unfairly influence the election results.
(i) The Plaintiffs contended that the defendant No. 2 is trying to bypass the secret ballot system by circulating unnumbered proxy forms to manipulate the election outcome. It was alleged that the defendants intentionally delayed the delivery of election notices to shorten the response window for members, allowing the Managing Committee to collect signed, blank proxies under pressure.
(j) It was further asserted by the plaintiff that defendants No. 2 and other office bearers engaged in a premeditated fraud by collecting signed proxy forms before the election schedule, dated August 3, 2010, even reached the general membership. Despite the certified Rules and Regulations mandating a secret ballot, the defendants persisted with the unauthorized proxy method. It was contended that when members attempted to deliver a formal objection letter on August 6, 2010, officials at the Club and defendant No. 3 willfully refused service. Consequently, the notice was served via courier (Consignment Nos. 42410 and 42409) and received on August 11, 2010.
(k) The Plaintiff asserted that on August 11, 2010, Plaintiff No. 2 formally corresponded with defendant No. 3, demanding that the elections be conducted strictly in accordance with the Club's Memorandum of Association CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 6 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:38:33 +0530 and Rules and Regulations; however, this demand was ignored. Subsequently, on August 16, 2010, three contesting members personally met with the Returning Officer to apprise him of the ongoing misuse of power by defendant No. 2 and other office bearers.
(l) It was contended that during this meeting, the members requested adherence to the prescribed electoral procedures.
The Returning Officer, however, pleaded inability to comply, claiming ignorance of the Club's Rules and Regulations and alleging that defendant No. 2 had failed to provide him with an authenticated copy. Consequently, the members served the Returning Officer with a formal letter on the same day, accompanied by a certified copy of the Rules. This letter specifically challenged the selective and unauthorized issuance of blank proxy forms and reiterated the mandate under Clause 6(c) for elections to be conducted solely via secret ballot. It was alleged that despite a formal letter sent on August 11, 2010, defendant No. 3 failed to ensure that the election followed the Club's constitutional framework. In a meeting on August 16, 2010, the Returning Officer admitted he was neither familiar with the Rules nor in possession of them, claiming defendant No. 2 had withheld the latest certified copy.
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 7 of 41
Digitally
Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by Arul
Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:38:37
+0530
(m) It was emphasized that the selective distribution of proxy forms lacked legal sanction and violated the principles of a fair election. Hence, the present suit was preferred by the plaintiff.
(n) Pertinently, vide submissions made during final arguments on inter alia 12.02.2026, by Ld Counsel for plaintiff no. 3 as well as plaintiff no. 1, the prayers, as contained in clause (b) and (c) of the plaint, were not pressed and withdrawn, being infructuous, and prayer vide clause (a) was restricted to the relief 'Pass a decree of declaration against the defendants declaring that the polling/election to the Managing Committee of Defendant No.1 can only be held by secret ballot and not by proxy system.'.
(o) Essentially, the plaintiffs have adjured this Court to ordain that the elections to the Managing Committee of the Club be henceforth held in consonance with the Original MoA i.e by way of secret ballot, and not by way of proxies.
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS
2. Responding to the insinuations levelled by the plaintiffs, a joint Written Statement was filed on behalf of all the defendants whereby all the imputations contained in the plaint were categorically repudiated. The gist of the denials are as follows:
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 8 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:38:42
+0530
(a) It was contended that the plaintiffs had misled the Court by filing a wrong, old and outdated Memorandum of Association of the Club, and concealed the fact that since 1977, the functioning of the Club is being governed by the amended Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations i.e Ex DW1/A ('Amended MoA').
(b) It was averred that a General Body meeting was held on 18.02.1977 whereafter the MoA and Rules & Regulations were amended wherein Clause 6 (c) was amended as thus:
"The vacancies so to be filled shall be by election through secret ballot. Members not attending such election meetings may exercise their right to vote through proxy who shall be one from the voting members of the General Body. However, Proxy letters being verified signatures shall have to be deposited with the Hony President of the club at least 40 hours in advance of the scheduled time fixed for that particular meeting. The proxy shall be valid only for a specified purpose and for a specified meeting."
(c) It was thus averred that pursuant to the amendment to the MoA in 1977, all the elections thereafter for the past more than 33 years have been conducted as per the amended clause wherein proxy voting was permitted. It was also contended that plaintiff no 2 himself was elected as a member of the Managing Committee in the year 2007 wherein the election process was conducted as per amended MOA, and this fact has been concealed by the plaintiffs. It was averred that the plaintiffs have placed CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 9 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:38:46 +0530 reliance on the certified copy of the original/pre-1977 MoA and deliberately omitted to inform this fact to the Court.
(d) The plaintiffs are estopped from claiming any relief inasmuch as the plaintiffs had been participating in the election process through the system of proxy voting, which has been in vogue since 1977.
(e) It was denied that the members of the Club were given an impression that voting was only by proxy and not by casting vote personally through secret ballot.It was further contended that neither the present Managing Committee nor the members of the Managing Committee after 1977 had any role in amending the Rules and Regulations.
(f) It was refuted that the mode of proxy voting was never discussed or approved by the General Body in any meeting. All the allegations of the plaintiffs were thus denied.
III. ISSUES FRAMED
3. Vide order dated 23.05.2011 following issues were framed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:-
"1. Whether the elections for the Managing Committee of defendants No 1 held on 29.08.2010 are illegal, as alleged in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the Memorandum of Association of defendants no 1 was amended in the year 1977? OPD CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 10 of 41 Digitally signed by Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:38:49 +0530
3. If issue no 2 is proved, whether the plaintiff are stopped from challenging the amendment made in the year 1977? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts and, if so, to what effect?OPD
5.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed in the suit? OPP."
4. Vide order dated 27.08.2010, plaintiffs were directed to deposit a cost of Rs 1,00,000/- with the DHCLSC for their misconduct, false presentations and concealment of facts. In this regard, an application for expunging the above observations was filed by the plaintiffs, and the application was kept pending with the remark made by the Hon'ble High Court on 20.01.2011 that 'whether the observations made by the Court were justified in the facts and circumstances of the case or not can be decided only after the evidence is recorded.' The application was directed to be taken up at the time of final disposal of the suit.
5. The matter was eventually transferred from the Hon'ble High Court to this Court vide order dated 08.02.2016.
IV. EVIDENCE LED BY THE PLAINTIFFS
6. In the trial, four witnesses were examined by plaintiff, succinct testimonies whereof are as follows:
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 11 of 41
Digitally
Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by Arul
Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:38:53
+0530
7. PW-1 Sh Vinod Kumar Dhanda (Plaintiff no.1) He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon certain documents i.e. documents already exhibited Ex P1 to Ex. P.13, the documents already admitted by the defendants, Ex PW1/1 as already marked as PW4/1, Ex PW1/2 as already marked as Ex P.10 during admission/denial, copy of letter dated 06.08.2010 as Mark A, Ex PW1/4 as already marked as ExP.13 during admission/denial, Office copy of letter dated 19.08.2010 as Ex PW1/5, Ex PW1/6 collectively proved by PW4 and PW-1 further relied upon the documents proved by PW-4 (subject to the objections of defendants as regards the documents proved by PW-4). He was cross examined by Ld Counsel for defendants.
8. PW-2 Ved Prakash Verma: He had filed his evidence by way of affidavit. However, the same could not be tendered on account of his death during trial.
9. P3W1 Sh CK Gupta (Plaintiff No.3) : He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. P3W1/A. He relied upon documents already Ex PW1/1 to Ex PW1/6. He was also cross-examined by Ld Counsel for defendants at length.
10. PW-4 Ms Geeta Kapoor, Inspector, Office of Registrar of Societies: She was the summoned witness. She had brought the records pertaining to the defendant no.1/Safdarjung Club.
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 12 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:38:56 +0530 V. EVIDENCE LED BY DEFENDANTS
11.In the proceeding, three witnesses were examined by defendants, succinct testimonies whereof are as follows:
12.DW-1 Sh Ajay Avinashi/Defendant No.2 He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. He relied upon certain documents viz. Amended MoA Ex DW1/A, Minutes of Meeting of GBM held in 1977 Ex DW1/B, Certified copy of proxy forms Ex DW1/C, Certified Copy of proxy form, election notice for election to be held in the year 2010 Ex DW1/D. He was cross examined by Ld Counsel for plaintiff.
13. DW-2 Sushil Kumar Vadhera. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW2/A. He relied upon the documents already relied upon the defendants no 1. He was cross examined by Ld Counsel for plaintiff.
14. DW-3 Shi Binay Kumar Jha- He was the Dy Administrative officer of the Club, and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex DW3/A. He too was cross examined by the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that Ex PW4/1/Original MoA is valid and applicable qua the Club.
VI. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS Submissions of the Ld Counsel for Plaintiff no.3
15. Sh Kshitij Sharda, Ld Counsel for plaintiff no 3 submitted that Ex PW4/1 is the original Memorandum of Association of defendants no 1 Safdurjang Club. Ld Counsel contended that CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 13 of 41 Digitally Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:00 +0530 a perusal of Clause 6 (c)thereof would make it explicit that elections to the Management Committee of the Club shall mandatorily be held by secret ballot. Ld Counsel further submitted that as per Clause 6 (c) itself, election can also be held by any other mode as approved by General Body of the Club during meeting.
16. Ld Counsel submitted that Ex PW4/1 is a duly certified copy, being certified from the Registrar of Societies in terms of Section 19 of the Society Registration Act, 1860, and therefore, it shall be deemed to be a prima facie evidence of matters contained therein in all legal proceedings whatsoever. Ld Counsel further contended that in contrast, Ex DW1/A, filed by the defendants i.e. a purported amended Memorandum of Association, bears no such stamp of Registrar of Societies, and contents thereof prima facie cannot be deemed to be true and correct.
17.Ld Counsel further invited the Court's attention to order dated 23.05.2011 to contend that second issue that was framed by the Hon'ble High Court was as follows:
Whether the MOU of defendants no 1 was amended in the year 1977?
18. It was contended by Ld Counsel for the plaintiff no 3 that the onus to prove this issue was on the defendants and the defendants has failed to discharge this onus. In order to substantiate his contention, Ld Counsel invited the Court's CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 14 of 41 Digitally Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:03 +0530 attention to Clause 8 of Memorandum of Association Ex PW4/1 to contend that before an amendment in the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations can be effected, the following 3 pre-requisites have to be satisfied:
(a) there has to be General Body meeting
(b) Voting for amendment has to be approved by majority of votes of 3/5 of voting members on roll either present personally or by proxy.
(c) Prior notice of proposed amendment shall be given by intending members in writing delays 30 days in advance.
19. Ld Counsel submitted that the defendants could not cogently establish that such a General Body meeting ever took place. In order to substantiate his contention, Ld Counsel invited the Court's attention to Clause 13 (a) of MOA ExPW4/1 to contend that the notice required for meeting of general body shall be 3 weeks and further 25 members shall form a quorum. In this context, Ld Counsel contended that the factum of sending of aforementioned notice for convening the general body meeting is not forthcoming from the pleadings of the defendants.
20.It was further submitted that even though a notice dated 08.01.1977 has been placed on record by the defendants, that notice mentions holding of a general body meeting on 13.02.1977 and not holding of meeting on 18.02.1977. Further, the second prerequisite of 3/5th majority has also not CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 15 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:07 +0530 been established inasmuch as the same could be established by adducing (i) An attendance register and (ii) a list of total members. It was further contended that in the cross- examination dated 22.07.2019, of DW-1 Ajay Avinashi, he conceded that as per rules, the attendance of participants at GBM is recorded in writing by means of their signatures in a register. Admittedly, no such attendance register has been placed on record by defendants.
21.Further, Ld Counsel for plaintiff contended that even though defendants has filed Ex DW1/B, a list which purportedly contains a list of members present at the time of voting, Minutes of Meeting have not been proved in accordance with law. In this context, Ld Counsel invited the Court's attention to the cross-examination of DW-1 wherein DW-1 avowed that he was not able to trace the original Minutes book bearing Minutes of Meeting dated 18.02.1977. In this regard, Ld Counsel contended that in the absence of original Minutes book bearing Minutes of Meeting dated 18.02.1977, the defendants could not have certified the same to be true. Ld Counsel thus contended that it has not been established as to how Ex DW1/B was certified.
22.Further, Ld Counsel contended that in terms of testimony of DW-2, Sh Sushil Kumar Vadara, it has been elicited that ExDW1/B was certified in May 2013, i.e. after filing of present suit. Ld Counsel further contended that the 3 rd CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 16 of 41 Digitally Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:11 +0530 prerequisite as contained in Rule 8 viz., issuance of prior notice qua the proposed amendments has also not been duly established by the defendants. In order to substantiate this Contention, Ld Counsel has placed reliance on Ex PW4/6 viz., letter signed by Registrar of societies wherein a letter qua amendments in MOA and Rules and Regulations, of defendants, was returned by the Registrar of Societies as the same was not in accordance with Rules 12 and 12(a) of the Societies Registration Act.
23.It was further contended that Ex PW4/7 reflects that various documents viz Membership register, Valid proceedings (notice duly received by all the members and the minutes signed by the quorum) for governing body meting vide which the resolution for amendments to the existing provisions was recommended, valid proceedings (notice duly received by all the members and the minutes signed by the quorum) for Special meeting of General body in which the resolution for amendment was adopted/considered, valid proceedings (notice duly received by all the members and minutes signed by the quorum) for Second Special Meeting of General Body in which the resolution for amendment was confirmed by 3/5th of the members present etc. were not sent with alleged Amended MoA of defendant Club, to the Registrar for certification and registration. During the course of arguments, Ld Counsel had contended that the above exhibit clearly CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 17 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:15 +0530 reflects that the documents of proceedings to enable amendment of MOA, were neither filed in the present suit, nor were produced before the Registrar in circa 1977, when the amendments allegedly took place.
24.Ld Counsel further contended that even if the requirement of approval of a Registrar qua amendments in the MOA was not a mandatory one, yet the Club had to necessarily produce the same in legal proceedings as proof of alleged amendments. Ld Counsel for plaintiff contended that Ex DW-1/A viz., purported amended MOA filed by the defendants is a document which has not been duly proved as per law and therefore no reliance can be placed thereon. Thus, the document which has been cogently proved viz., MOA PW4/1 has to be given effect on, particularly Clause 6 (c) thereof. Ld Counsel thus submitted that the defendants club was bound to hold elections of the Managing Committee by secret ballot which has not been done so qua elections held on 29.08.2010 and onwards.
25. In a nutshell, Ld Counsel for plaintiff no 3 contended that the absence of certification by the Registrar implies that the Registrar did not satisfy himself that the amended MOA was executed as per Regulations of the Club. Further, Ld Counsel submitted that the letter and documents submitted by the Club, for the purpose of registration of purported amended Digitally CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 18 of 41 signed by Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:18 +0530 MOA were ultimately returned to the Club, by the Registrar of Societies, vide letter dated 12.08.1977.
26. Ld Counsel further contended that a perusal of record would reveal that the relevant records of 1977 were not only not produced before the Registrar of Societies Act, but was also not maintained by the Club itself. Ld Counsel thus contended that the burden to prove was on the defendants, a burden which they failed to discharge.
27. As far as plea of estoppel is concerned, Ld Counsel for plaintiff contended that in the evidence by way of affidavit, plaintiff no 1 and 3 have averred in their evidence by way of affidavit at para 15 that even though the system of proxy voting may have been followed in the past elections, the same was done only under the false impression given by Managing Committees, that the proxy system of voting was allowed as per Rules and Regulations.
28.Ld Counsel submitted that the plaintiff obtained knowledge of the fact that no amendment had been carried out as alleged by the defendants, only after a certified copy of Original MoA of the Club, was obtained u/s 19 of Societies Registration Act, 1860 from the Office of Registrar, on 17.08.2010. Thus, according to Ld Counsel for plaintiff, period of limitation begins from 17.08.2010 and not from the dates of prior participation by the plaintiff in voting.
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 19 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:23 +0530
29.Ld Counsel therefore submitted that henceforth all elections to the Managing Committee of the defendants club ought to be held by way of secret Ballot system as provided under Clause 6(c) of the MOA Ex PW4/1.
Submissions of Plaintiff No.1
30. On the other hand, Sh. Vinod Kumar Dhanda, Plaintiff no 1 argued in person along with Ld Counsel for plaintiff no.3 and withdrew their prayer (b) to (c) of the plaint. They pressed for relief qua prayer (d), and qua prayer (a) only to the extent that a decree of declaration be passed against the defendants declaring that the polling/elections to the Managing Committee of the defendants no 1 can only be held by secret ballot and not by proxies system,.
31.Plaintiff no 1 also reiterated that the onus to prove issue no.2 was on the defendants, which they failed to do so. Plaintiff no 1 further invited the Court's attention to order dated 08.03.2018 to contend that an application under Order VII rule 11 CPC, filed by the defendants seeking rejection of plaint, was dismissed by this Court and the Court had observed that the present suit was not only qua conduct of the election process of 29.08.2010 but also qua the manner in which the elections were to be conducted.
32.Plaintiff no 1 further contended that a perusal of Ex PW4/1 i.e. Original Memorandum of Association filed by the CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 20 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:26 +0530 plaintiff would reveal that it is certified under Section 19 of Societies Registration Act and such a certified copy shall be prima facie evidence of matters contained therein for all legal proceedings.
33.Plaintiff no 1 thus contended that the defendants ought to have adhered to the Original Memorandum of Association dated 17.02.1973. However, defendants did not file this Memorandum of Association, but filed their own Memorandum of Association, which allows proxy voting. Plaintiff further submitted that allowing voting by proxies is in violation of Rule 6 (c), Rule 8 and Rule 13(f) of Memorandum of Association, registered in 1973. Plaintiff also contended that the purported amended Memorandum of Association, has not been duly registered, stamped or proved by the Registration of Societies, nor has amended Memorandum of Association, been proved by 3/5th of voting members of the club.
34.Plaintiff submitted that as per Rule 13(f), the General Body had to elect the Managing Committee, but in this case, the Managing Committee member were themselves electing their own members. It was further submitted by the plaintiff that the Minutes of General Body Meeting alleged to have been held on 18.02.1977 i.e. EX DW1/B and Ex PW4/D3 have not been signed by 3/5th of the voting members, and therefore the CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 21 of 41 Digitally Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:30 +0530 GBM cannot be held to be valid as per Rule 8 of the Original Memorandum of Association.
35. Plaintiff further submitted that no attendance register, no notice of the General Body Meeting and no original minutes book was adduced on record by the defendants. Plaintiff further submitted that the originals of the above-said documents have not been submitted in the Court. It was also submitted by the plaintiff that the documents adduced on record by the defendants viz., notice dated 08.01.1977 and Proxies form Ex DW1/C were in the context of General Body meeting to be held on 13.02.1977 and not qua the General Body Meeting dated 18.02.1977. Thus, plaintiff contended that notice is defective as far as General Body Meeting dated 18.02.1977 is concerned. He further submitted that the said notice was not proved nor pleaded by the defendants and is not a valid notice as per Rule 8 of Original Memorandum of Association .
36.Plaintiff further submitted that order dated 27.08.2010 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi whereby a cost of Rs 1,00,000/- was imposed upon the plaintiff, was an order obtained by the defendants by way of concealment. It was further submitted that at the time of hearing of the said order, the defendants had concealed the factum of letter dated 12.08.1977 Ex PW4/6, and further letter dated 26.08.1992 Ex PW4/5, whereby Registrar of Societies had stated that the CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 22 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:36 +0530 amendments had not been approved and therefore cannot be given effect to.
37.It was submitted that the above-mentioned letters were proved by PW-4 Ms Geeta Kapur. It was thus contended that it has not been proved by the defendants that the Memorandum of Association of Safdarjung Club was amended in the year 1977. It was submitted that as per Board of Control of Cricket Vs Cricket Association of Bihar, CA 4235 of 2014 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was mandated that cricket association shall not have proxy voting. Plaintiff placed reliance on the said judgment to contend that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has deprecated the practice of voting by proxies.
38.Plaintiff further submitted that the application filed by the plaintiff for expunging the observations dated 27.08.2010 as recorded vide orders dated 20.01.2011 and 13.10.2014 be also adjudicated in favour of the plaintiff. Lastly, plaintiff contended that cost of Rs 3,00,000/- ought to be imposed upon the defendants, for which he had also given notice Ex P7.
39. Lastly, Ld Counsel for plaintiff no 3 along with plaintiff no 1 submitted that the application under Section 340 Cr.PC, filed by the defendants, should be dismissed as the plaintiffs have not committed perjury.
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 23 of 41
Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally
signed by
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:39:41
+0530
VII. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS
40. Per contra, Sh Nishit Kush, Ld Counsel for defendants along with Sh Ajay Avinashi, Defendant No.2 submitted that the amendment of MOA took place in the year 1977. However, the present suit was filed in the year 2010. Thus, it has been filed breaching the period of limitation of 3 years prescribed under the Limitation Act for declaration of an instrument to be null and void.
41. Ld Counsel for defendants submitted that a perusal of order sheet dated 27.08.2010, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi would reflect the conduct of the plaintiff and it would demonstrate that the plaintiff has not come with clean hands inasmuch as, for making wrong assertions, a cost of Rs 1,00,000/- was imposed upon him.
42.Ld Counsel for defendants also submitted that the plaintiff has no cause of action inasmuch as he himself participated in subsequent elections that took place since 1977, which reflects that the plaintiff was well aware that proxy system for voting was in place, and therefore the plaintiff ought to be estopped from raising this plea at this juncture. In this context, Ld Counsel for defendants invited the Court's attention to para 15 of his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW1/A. Ld Counsel for defendants also contended that the present suit is time barred inasmuch as the plaintiff was aware of the system of voting by way of proxies from 1977 itself, CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 24 of 41 Digitally Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:44 +0530 and he has come to the Court after about 33 years and therefore the present case is hit by limitation. Ld Counsel for defendants further submitted that in terms of Managing Committee Khalsa Middle School & Ors Vs Mohinder Kaur & Ors Civil Appeal no 1260 of 1980 , there is no requirement of law to mandatorily register the amendment in the Memorandum of Association and Rules, with the Registrar of Societies. The relevant extracts thereof is reproduced hereunder:
"11. Apart from the requirement contained in Section 12A for registration of the change of name of a Society, with the Registrar, there is no requirement in the Societies Registration Act which requires registration of any amendment in the memorandum of association the rules and regulations of a society to he registered with the Registrar. Even in the Companies Act, 1956 a distinction is made in the manner of alteration of the memorandum of association and alteration of the articles of association. Under Section 18 of the Companies Act, it is necessary that the alteration of memorandum of association be registered with the Registrar of Companies within the prescribed period and the alteration makes effect from the date of its registration and under Section 19(1), it is provided that the alteration shall have effect only it has been duly registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 18. There is no such requirement with regard to registration of the alteration in the articles of association of the company. Here we are concerned with the amendment in the rules and regulations of the Society. In the absence of any requirement in the Societies Registration Act that the alteration in the rules and regulations must be registered with the Registrar, it cannot be held that registration of CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 25 of 41 Digitally Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:48 +0530 the amendment is a condition precedent for such an alteration to come into effect.
43. Ld Counsel further submitted that the documents vide which the amendment took place pertained to the year 1977, and it is but natural that such documents would not be in possession of the defendants due to passage of time.
44. Ld Counsel further contended that a perusal of statement of PW-4 Ms Geeta Kapoor, Inspector, Office of Registrar of Societies made on 06.03.2012 during her examination in chief, would reveal that Ex. PW4/8 is correct copy of amendments which are claimed to be second proposed amendment of Rules as well as the amendment accepted in General Body Meeting dated 18.02.1977, as per the endorsement.
45. Ld Counsel for defendants submitted that the plaintiff No.1 was aware of the system of proxy voting and only filed this present suit after losing the election for post of Member of Managing Committee in the year 2010. It was also submitted by Ld Counsel for defendants that the factum of knowledge on part of the plaintiff and suppression and concealment of facts is explicit upon a perusal of cross-examination of P3W1 as well. Ld Counsel also stated that the documents evincing the factum of holding of General Body Meeting, and passing of resolution whereby the Memorandum of Association and Rules were amended in 1977, were adduced on record.
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 26 of 41
Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:39:51 +0530
46.Ld Counsel for defendants submitted that DW-1 Ajay Avinashi had averred in his cross-examination that the copy of the Minutes of Meeting dated 18.02.1977 were signed by an authorized person but he could not trace the original minutes book. In this context, Ld Counsel has again referred to the examination in chief of PW-4 Ms Geeta Kapoor, wherein PW-4 averred that Ex PW4/8 viz. copy of amendments, is the correct copy.
47.Ld Counsel for defendants contended that in the cross-
examination of DW-1, he has categorically averred that there are ample documents on record indicating the convening of General Body meeting dated 18.02.1977.
48. Ld Counsel for defendants reiterated that the suit is time barred in terms of Article 58 of the Limitation Act. According to Ld Counsel, the right to first sue accrued to the plaintiff in the year 1977, when the plaintiff participated in the elections in 1977. This fact, according to Ld Counsel, is evinced from a perusal of reply filed by the plaintiff while replying to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. Ld Counsel invited the Court's attention to reply of application u/O XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. (However, a perusal of their reply nowhere lends credence to these assertions of Ld Counsel for defendants).
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 27 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:39:55 +0530 VIII. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO i. Issue no 1: Whether the elections for the Managing Committee of defendants No 1 held on 29.08.2010 are illegal, as alleged in the plaint?
49.As discussed above, since the plaintiffs did not press prayers
(b) and (c) qua elections held on 29.08.2010, and considering the fact the said prayers have become infructuous, this issue is hereby struck off.
ii. Issue no 2: Whether the Memorandum of Association of defendants no 1 was amended in the year 1977?
SUIT HAS BEEN FILED WITHIN LIMITATION
50. The issue of limitation is required to be adverted to, as during the course of arguments, Ld Counsel for the defendants had demurred that the suit is time barred, and therefore, should be dismissed. Attention of the Court was invited to the cross- examination of PW1 dated 13.01.2014 wherein he avowed as thus:
" It is correct that in the elections, subsequent to 1977, the voting was done through proxy also."
51.It was contended that the plaintiffs were aware of the system of voting by way of proxies from 1977 itself, and therefore, filing of the suit after 33 years therefrom, would be hit by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said Article prescribes a period of 3 years for seeking a declaration, from CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 28 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:39:58
+0530
the time when the right to sue first accrues. Thus, according to the defendants, the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiffs in the year 1977.
52.On the other hand, the counsel for the plaintiffs highlighted the fact that during the cross-examination of PW1 on 03.12.2014, it was elicited as thus:
"The practice of proxy voting has been there during the election of defendant no.1 (Volunteered. Under misconception of the Managing Committee to collect votes for themselves)"
53.The plaintiff no.1 had further clarified during his cross-
examination on 03.12.2014 that:
"I voted for the first time in the year 2010 in the elections of defendant no.1."
54.Similarly, PW3 had affirmed in his cross-examination on 07.09.2015 as thus:
" I do not remember when for the first time I casted my vote in the elections of defendant no.1. I have never been office bearer defendant no.1."
55.These statements assume significance inasmuch as the defendant did not prove that the purported Amended MoA were ever circulated to the members of the Club, so as to attribute knowledge on them, of the factum of amendment. Knowledge of plaintiffs qua manner of voting in prior elections would be of no consequence in computing the period of limitation unless it was demonstrated that the defendants circulated the Amended MoA to inter alia the CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 29 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:40:02 plaintiffs, which admittedly has not been done so. There is a fundamental difference in participating in an election process and in having knowledge of the manner in which elections are to be held. PW1 stated that he voted for the first time in 2010. PW3 stated that he was never an office bearer of the Club. Therefore, it is quite natural for them to be not aware of rules governing the manner of voting viz. whether by proxy or solely by secret ballot. Their nescience qua the actual manner of voting, cannot be termed as their acquiescence to a wrong practice of voting. It is trite that if a practice was perpetuated through inter alia misrepresentation, the same can be challenged once the misrepresentation is discovered, which in this case was revealed only after obtaining the certified copy of Original MoA on 17.08.2010.
56.Significantly, both, PW1 and PW3 unequivocally affirmed in their examination-in chief that the proxy system of voting was done only under the false impression given by successive Managing Committees that proxy system of voting was allowed as per rules and regulations. It was brought to the fore by the plaintiffs that they obtained knowledge of the factum of amendment only after obtaining the certified copy of the Original MoA. The said certified copy was obtained u/s 19 of the Societies Registration, from the office of the Registrar on 17.08.2010. The present suit was filed on 20.08.2010. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the suit was filed CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 30 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2026.02.12 18:40:05 +0530 with utmost alacrity within the prescribed period of limitation.
NO AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION & RULES AND REGULATIONS
57.Issue no.2 viz. whether the MoA of defendant no.1 was amended in the year 1977, was framed on 23.05.2011. The onus to prove this issue lay squarely on the shoulders of the defendants. It is explicit that amendment to the MoA has not been established by the defendants. The reason would be pellucid upon a perusal of the subsequent paragraphs.
REGISTRATION OF ORIGINAL MOA, AND NOT OF AMENDED MOA
58.The plaintiffs adduced on record Ex PW4/1 viz. The Original MoA, which contains Rule 6 (c) which makes it mandatory to hold elections by way of secret ballot. As per the said clause, election can also be held by any other mode, as approved by General Body of Club during a meeting. No such meeting has admittedly taken place where any other mode for holding elections has been approved, therefore voting has to be by secret ballot system. Significantly, the Original MoA is a certified document, from none else than the Registrar of Societies, and as per Section 19 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, such a certified copy shall be deemed to be prima CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 31 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:40:09 +0530 facie evidence of matters contained therein in all legal proceedings whatsoever. In a nutshell, the Original MoA shall govern the election of the Club unless it is proved that a valid amendment qua the MoA took place.
59.As far as obtaining approval of the Registrar qua amendments to the MoA is concerned, Ld Counsel for the defendants had remonstrated that the law did not mandate that registration of amendments is a condition precedent for such alteration to come to effect. Reliance was placed on Khalsa Middle School (supra). There can be no cavil to this proposition, and to this extent, submissions of Ld Counsel are correct.
60. Further, it was contended that the documents are of old vintage, and it would naturally be impossible to adduce them on record due to passage of time. It was vehemently contended that Ex PW4/8 is a correct copy of the amendments which is claimed to be second proposed amendment of rules, and PW4 Geeta Kapoor has proved the said documents.
61.However, these contentions of the defendants cannot be countenanced. It has been brought on record that documents and letters, including the aforementioned Ex PW4/8 are simplicitor documents submitted before the Registrar. Nothing turns on mere submission of documents before the Registrar unless steps are further taken by the Registrar in this regard. As per Ex PW4/6 viz. letter dated 12.08.1977, of the Registrar, the documents evincing purported amendments, CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 32 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.02.12 18:40:12 +0530 were neither submitted before the Registrar despite repeated reminders by the Registrar, nor maintained/preserved by the defendants. The burden of proof to show that amendments had indeed taken place, was on the defendants, a burden they failed to discharge. In any case, these were documents simplicitor, submitted to the Regisrar, but not verified, authenticated or certified by the Regisrar. No reliance can be placed upon them.
62.it would be of utmost significance to underscore that PW 4 brought the certified copy of Original MoA, and not the Amended MoA. She averred in her examination in chief on 06.03.2012 as thus:
"I have brought the summoned record pertaining to the society-Safdarjung Club. The said society is registered at No. S/5648, during the year 1972/73. I have brought the original Memorandum of Association pertaining to the said society. The certified copy thereof is Ex PW4/1."
63.Ex PW4/1 is the Original MoA, and not the Amended MoA.
Original MoA has been certified, and not the Amended MoA. Absence of certification by the Registrar implies that the defendants could not satisfy the Registrar that the amendments were carried out in accordance with rules. The letters and documents submitted by the defendants for the purposes of registration of Amended MOA, were returned by the Registrar vide letter dated 12.08.1977. The defence of the Digitally CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 33 of 41 signed by Arul Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:40:16 +0530 defendants crumble on this score alone, inasmuch as the Amended MoA could not be registered for inter alia want of adherence to the rules qua amendment as laid down in the Original MoA. Thus, as is evident from the foregoing deliberations, the Amended MoA is not a duly certified copy.
64. De hors the registration or certification of the Amended MoA, it also needs to be adjudicated as to whether any amendment took place in the MoA. In this context, it would be of utmost significance to peruse the relevant extracts of the Original MoA wherein the manner of carrying out amendments have been elucidated:
"RULE 8: AMENDMENT OF THE
MEMORANDUM AND RULES AND
REGULATIONS
The Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations may be amended at a meeting of the General Body by majority of votes of 3/5 of the voting members on roll either present personally or by proxy. A prior notice of the proposed amendment shall have to be given by the intending members in writing at ;east 30 clear days in advance."
65.Further, as per Rule 13(a), a prior notice of 3 weeks and a quorum of 25 members have been stipulated for convening a meeting of the General body.
66.Let us evaluate whether the above pre-requisites have been fulfilled by the defendants.
PRIOR NOTICE OF MEETING OF GENERAL BODY CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 34 of 41 Digitally Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:40:22 +0530
67.Ld Counsel for plaintiff no. 3 had emphasised that the factum of sending a notice for convening the General Body Meeting is not contained in the pleadings of the defendants. Notice dated 08.01.1977, which has been placed on record by the defendants, only mentions holding of GBM on 13.02.1977, and not on 18.02.1977, the date on which purportedly the amendments to the MoA were approved. Therefore, in terms of Rule 8 of the Original MoA, the notice is clearly defective as far as GBM dated 18.02.1977 is concerned.
68.Furthermore, Rule 8 prescribes that the notice of proposed amendments have to be circulated in writing at least 30 clear days in advance. This mandatory compliance has also not been fulfilled.
VOTING BY 3/5 MAJORITY OF MEMBERS
69.Rule 8 of the Original MoA stipulates that rules may be amended at a meeting of the General Body by majority of votes of 3/5 of the voting members. The quorum could be established by producing (i) attendance register of the meeting dated 18.02.1977, and (ii) a list of total members of the General Body as on 18.02.1977.
70.In his cross-examination dated 22.07.2019, DW1 Ajay Avinashi avowed as thus:
"As per the rules the attendance of participants at GBM is recorded in writing by means of their signatures on the register. I have already filed the CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 35 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:40:26
+0530
photocopy of the register of attendance for the meeting dated 18.2.1977. The defendant no.1 could not trace the attendance register. However, the list of participants already mentioned in Ex DW1/B "
71. No such photocopy of attendance register has been placed on record nor marked/identified and proved by the defendants in their evidence.
72.As far as the list of members present at the time of voting is concerned, Ex DW1/B was filed by the defendants. In this context, DW1 stated in his cross examination on 22.07.2019:
" The copy of the minutes dated 18.02.1977 were signed by authorised person but I cannot recall his name. I have not been able to trace the original minutes book bearing the minutes of the meeting dated 18.02.1977."
73.However, when DW2 Sushil Kumar Vadhera was called for cross-examination, he averred as thus:
"Ex DW1/B has not been certified by me. Vol. It was some time in May,2013 that the Managing Committee decided to certify the said document. I cannot say whether it was certified on the basis of original or not. I cannot produce the original minute book for the meeting dated 18.02.1977.I do not have any idea as to whether the minutes were circulated to members or not or confirmed/ratified in any other meeting"
74.Ex DW1/B does not even bear the signatures of 3/5 of the majority of voting members. It is thus apparent that Ex DW1/B i.e copy of minutes of meeting dated 18.02.1977 has not been proved as per law, as the defendants could not have certified them to be a copy in the absence of the original CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 36 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:40:31 +0530 minutes book. It is also pertinent to note that as per the testimony of DW2 Sushil Kumar Vadhera, the certification took place only on May 2013 i.e after filing if the present suit.
75.What is perhaps most pivotal, is Ex PW4/6 i.e the letter of the Registrar whereby the request of the defendants qua amendments of MoA, was returned, on the premise that the same was not in accordance with Section 12 and 12A Societies Registration Act. A list of documents Ex PW4/7 is also appended with the letter, which reflects that all relevant documents were not submitted before the Registrar, in order to enable registration of the purported amended MoA. PW4 Geeta Kapoor proved these document by affirming that Ex PW4/6 is the correct copy of letter dated 12.08.1977 and by affirming that Ex PW4/7 is a checklist and the same pertains to the office of the Registrar and bears the stamp at portion A. Significantly, Ex PW5, a letter addressed by the Registrar to the President/Secretary of the Club, mentions in trenchant terms as thus:
"It is pointed out that the said amendments had not been approved and therefore cannot be given effect".
76.It cannot be gainsaid that the amendments were never approved.
77.Succinctly put, no notice of the GBM qua the purported meeting, no attendance register and no original minutes of meeting have been filed or proved. The edifice on which the CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 37 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:40:44 +0530 defendants have predicated their practice of holding elections by proxy voting, thus stands demolished, in asmuch as they were a fortiori unable to prove the factum of amendment to the Original MoA. Issue no. 2 therefore decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
iii. Issue no 3: If issue no 2 is proved, whether the plaintiff are stopped from challenging the amendment made in the year 1977?
78. Again, since issue no 2 was not proved, this issue too is hereby struck off.
iv. Issue no 4: Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts and, if so, to what effect?
79.There is nothing on record to demonstrate that plaintiffs have suppressed any material fact. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
v. Issue no 5: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed in the suit?
80.Ergo, in view of the above in extenso discussion, this issue is hereby decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit stands decreed in favour of the plaintiffs with the following reliefs:
(a) The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration against the defendants to the effect that henceforth the polling/election to the Managing Committee of Defendant CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 38 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:41:14 +0530 No1/ Safdarjung Club can only be held by secret ballot and not by proxy system.
(b) The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of Mandatory Injunction whereby the defendants shall not hold elections to the Managing Committee of Safdarjung Club in any other manner except as laid down in the Original MoA of circa 1973 i.e the extant MoA.
(c) As far as the application u/s 340 CrPC filed by the defendants is concerned, the same is hereby dismissed being bereft of any justification, as is evident upon a perusal of the adjudication of the issues hereinabove.
(d) As far as the application of the plaintiff for expunction of remarks and imposition of costs vide order dated 27.08.2010 is concerned, the same hereby stands allowed in view of the fact that the said order was obtained by the defendants by way of concealment, inasmuch as the defendants had burked letter dated 12.08.1977 Ex PW4/6 viz. letter signed by Registrar of societies wherein request qua amendments in MOA and Rules and Regulations, of defendants, was returned by the Registrar of Societies as the same was not in accordance with Rules 12 and 12(a) of the Societies Registration Act. The application for expunction is also allowed as the defendants had not divulged before the Court, the contents of letter dated 26.08.1992 Ex PW4/5, whereby Registrar of Societies had stated that the amendments had not been approved.
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 39 of 41
Digitally
Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:41:19
+0530
(e) As far as the plea for imposition of costs upon the
defendants is concerned, in terms of the submissions made and the accompanying bifurcation given by PW1 during final arguments, the same deserves to be allowed. Elections by way of secret ballot promote fairness inasmuch as voters can cast their votes which reflect their true preferences, without undue influence, without intimidation or fear of reprisal.
Participation in the voting process increases significantly when voters know that their choices are protected. The tried and tested system of voting by secret ballot augurs well for any institution, and the defendants ought not to have demonstrated resistance to voting by secret ballot alone, especially when the Original MoA mandates voting by such means. Moreover, to fulfil their predilection for proxy voting, the defendants could have convened a General Body Meeting at the time of initiation of, and pendency of this lis, amended the MoA as per extant rules and could have ensured the same be registered u/s 19 of The Societies Registration Act to put a quietus to the matter. Instead, they chose to contest the matter on specious grounds for about a decade and a half. Plaintiff No.1 Sh Vinod Dhanda, an octogenarian, a super senior citizen has been clamouring for fairness in the electoral process, and that elections be held in accordance with extant rules and regulations. No justification has been forthcoming from the defendants to protract the resolution of issue at hand.
CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 40 of 41
Digitally
Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors signed by
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.02.12
18:41:22
+0530
Imposition of costs upon them would therefore be a natural corollary, and therefore costs to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- as prayed for is hereby imposed upon the defendants, to be paid to the plaintiffs in the manner sought vide application dated 12.02.2026.
81. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly
82. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signedPronounced in the open Court on this 12h February, 2026 Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.02.12 18:41:27 +0530 (ARUL VARMA) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI CS DJ 209089/2016 Page. 41 of 41 Vinod Kumar Dhanda & Ors Vs the Safdurjung Club & Ors