Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Section 3 in The Societies Registration Act, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Societies Registration Act, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shambhu Kumar Tripathi vs The Assistant Registrar, Firms, ... on 10 February, 1993
There after referring Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi's case and Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, AIR 1994 All. 209 in para 4 of the judgment has held that we are of the considered view that so far as registration/renewal of certificate of registration of the society is concerned, it can be done only by the Registrar and the Prescribed Authority has nothing to do with it and, therefore, the order of Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, in so far as it allowed the proceeding for renewal of certificate of registration initiated at the behest of Nagendra Kumar Pathak to go on, warranted no interference and the learned Single Judge committed no illegality in maintaining that order. But in concluding part of the judgment it has been further held that the dispute, if any, in respect of Nagendra Kumar Pathak being a member or office bearer of the society, if referred by at least one fourth of the members of the society to the Prescribed Authority, the latter shall hear and decide the same in summary manner independently of the observations made in the impugned order and list of the managing body submitted under Sub-section (4) of Section 3-A shall be modified/amended accordingly in term of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority without affecting the order of renewal of certificate of registration of the society. In other words the renewal of the certificate of registration of the society would enure to the benefit of the office bearers in whose favour the order is ultimately passed by the Prescribed Authority.
State Of Punjab & Ors vs M/S. Surinder Kumar & Co. & Ors on 11 December, 1996
20. Now it is necessary to examine the facts of the case in the light of submission of counsels for the parties. At very outset it is necessary to point out that from the perusal of application moved by the petitioner before Assistant Registrar on 7.4.2003 contained in Annexure-12 of the writ petition and application dated 19.4.2003 contained in Annexure-12-A of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner has come forward with the case that in the meeting of general body dated 17.9.2002 the petitioner has been elected as Manager of Committee of Management of the society and the task of renewal of certificate of registration was entrusted to Mr. Safiullah Ansari and Mukhtar Answari but instead of getting it renewed as directed to them, they have played fraud and misrepresented before the Registrar and obtained renewal of certificate of registration with the list of committee of management of the society wherein Mr. Safiullah respondent No. 3 has been shown as Manager of committee of management of the society and the Assistant Registrar has been requested to inquire into the matter and modify/correct the list of committee of management according to the list submitted by the petitioner under Section 3(4) of the Act. By subsequent application dated 19.4.2003 moved to the Assistant Registrar contained in Annexure-12-A of the writ petition the Chairman of the society Sri Sirazuddin has stated that the list of committee of management of the society dated 12.12.2002 which has been registered by the office of Assistant Registrar is forged and has been illegally registered by changing the name of Manager and the same has been cancelled by the Chairman of the society on account of its being incorrect and forged and it has been requested that the list dated 12.12.2002 may be cancelled and new list enclosed alongwith aforesaid application/letter may be registered. Upon the aforesaid application moved by petitioner a detail inquiry has been conducted by the Assistant Registrar by issuing notice to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 in pursuance thereof both the parties have adduced their evidences in support of their respective claim. After holding the inquiry the respondent No. 2 has found on the basis of evidences adduced before him that the renewal of certificate of registration issued in favour of Safiullah Ansari, respondent No. 3 on 27.10.2002 for a period of five years and recognizing him as Manager of committee of management of the society is correct as he has full support of the members of society, whereas the alleged election of members of committee of management of the society dated 17.9.2002 wherein the petitioner claims to have been elected as Manager of committee of management of the society, was found take and imaginary and not genuine at all. It has been categorically held that out of 11 members of committee of management of the society only Sri Siruzuddin and Sarwar Ali has supported the claim of petitioner Sher Ali and remaining members of the committee of management, several other persons have filed notary affidavit in support of claim of Safiullah and several other persons have made their statement before the respondent No. 2 by putting their appearance before him in support of claim of respondent No. 3. On the basis of aforesaid materials and other materials available records the respondent No. 2 has recorded categorical finding that by moving the aforesaid application referred above the petitioner is trying to raise fake and imaginary dispute in his personal interest on the basis of imaginary proceedings dated 17.9.2002. Accordingly the renewal of certificate or registration granted on 27.10.2002 for a period of five years in favour of Safiullah has been found valid and correct and the list of members of committee of management submitted by Safiullah under Section 3(4) of the Act was also found correct and directed to be registered under Section 4A of the Act. Thus in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered opinion that the present dispute completely falls within the four corners of Section 12-D (1) (c) of the Act and it cannot be a dispute within the meaning of provisions of Section 25 of the Act as there is nothing to indicate from perusal of application/objection of the petitioner contained in Annexures-12 and 12-A of the writ petition that the petitioner has raised any dispute on any grounds enumerated under Section 25(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act or he has made any request from respondent No. 2 to refer the dispute under Section 25 of the Act before the prescribed authority.
1