Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It is further stated that the plaintiffs/applicants have properly impleaded the necessary parties to the suit but the allegations of the petitioner regarding collusion of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.2 / respondent no.2 herein are also per-se false and illegal. The petitioner Dr. P.P. Habil, claiming himself to be the Chairman of plaintiff no.1 society, has no locus at all and further Diocese of Agra of Church of North India, has no legal existence. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment in Vinod Kumar Malviya vs. Maganlal Gameit (2013) 15 SCC 394 has nullified the unification of six churches whereby the Church of North India (CNI) claims its establishment and existence. The legal status of CNI is no more reintegrate since the Supreme Court has declared the merger of the churches as illegal. The Diocese of Agra is a unit of Church of North India therefore Agra Diocese of Church of North India has no role to play in the above said society.

16. It is further stated that the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands. The claim of the petitioner regarding unification of six churches was negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment and order dated 30.09.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.8800- 8801 of 2013. In the said judgment, the creation of Church of North India (CNI) has been declared illegal and therefore CNI can no longer be in control of administrative affairs of Sherwood Diocesan College Society. Added to it, the byelaws of the Society has not been amended after 1952. Therefore, Bishop of Lucknow so appointed by CIPBC continues to be Chairman of Sherwood Diocesan College Society. It is undisputed that the applicant is the only Bishop of Lucknow, as appointed of CIPBC and therefore, the applicant is the Chairman of Sherwood Diocesan College Society.

2.4. This unification is the result of a process which commenced from 1929. The negotiation meetings commenced from 1955 onwards which had representatives from the uniting churches who discussed every aspect of the emerging entity. A result of which was the Plan of Church Union in 1965 called the 4th Revised Edition in the form of a printed booklet published by the Negotiating Committee and widely circulated and deliberated by the uniting Churches which adopted the same. The plan traced the historic background leading to the creation of the CNI and dealt with all aspects of the same. Part-II of the same pertained to procedural details of the unification. The plan is a result of the negotiations through various meetings convened in the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1961, 1964 and 1970. The Managing Committee of the FDCB being the 'District Committee' initially participated in these meetings as an observer, however, from 1956, it joined the negotiation process. It is alleged that Resolution No. 70/08 was passed on February, 17, 1970 pursuant to which the CNI was formed by merging the six churches. FDCB being one of the six churches, discussed the unification internally within its 21 Societies and put the same to vote at different junctions and in the final decision, the resolution was approved by 3/5th majority of the representatives of the Governing Body. Allegedly, on November 29, 1970, the FDCB merged with the other six churches to form CNI and accepted the same as its legal continuation and successor and vested with the CNI its rights, titles, claims and FDCB's interests together with its privileges and obligations.

2.5. In 1976, the Church of North India Trust Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the CNITA') was formed under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and appointed as the trustee of CNI. It has been alleged that the annual meetings of the FDCB were discontinued post 1971. That certain members which had earlier given consent to Resolution 70/08 began to raise objections that FDCB continued to exist. Subsequently, the original plaintiff (Shri A.O. Patel) filed Civil Suit No. 72 of 1979 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bharuch for a declaration that FDCB has come to an end and that CNI is the legal successor and continuation of the same. During the pendency of the suit, CNI got itself registered retrospectively and Change Report Nos. 44/81 and 665/81 were filed before the Charity Commissioner to give effect to the changes resulting the unification. The aforementioned suit, after an appeal before the District Judge, Bharuch went before the Gujarat High Court as Second Appeal No. 303 of 1986, the same was dismissed and the matter came up before this Court as Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai (In Civil Appeal No. 9419 of 2003, decided on May 3, 2005). Therein, the question which arose before this Court was: whether Section 80 of the BPTA imposes a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.