NAGRI PRACHARINI SABHA Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE VARANASI
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 22,1990

Nagri Pracharini Sabha Appellant
VERSUS
VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE VARANASI Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

FAHIM AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
AMIYA VILAS SWAMI VS. SHANKHA BRITA DAS [LAWS(KAR)-2007-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
SHIKSHA SAMITI AMBAH VS. REGISTRAR, FIRMS & SOCIETIES, MP BHOPAL [LAWS(MPH)-2013-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
V. ARULKUMAR AND ORS. VS. TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT NURSES ASSOCIATION (GOVERNMENT RECOGNISED) AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-236] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
SYED AKHTAR HASAN RIZVI VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
NAGRI PRACHARINI SABHA VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE VARANASI [LAWS(SC)-1990-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD VS. HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-160] [REFERRED]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT J V JAIN COLLEGE VS. CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY [LAWS(ALL)-2002-10-64] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE ALJAMIYA TUL ISLAMIA LIL BANAAT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY DHAURA TANDA DISTRICT BAREILLY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-148] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV MURTI VERMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-2-132] [REFERRED TO]
C R RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI VS. BHARGAVI AMMA D/O KUNJUKUTTY AMMA [LAWS(KER)-2012-5-142] [REFERRED TO]
FAHIM AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-308] [REFERRED]
KISAN NATIONAL EDUCATION TRUST PRATAPGANJ & ANOTHER VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY (S.D.M.) & 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-137] [REFERRED TO]
S S JAIN MAHA SABHA (UTARI BHARAT) VS. S S JAIN SABHA & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-281] [REFERRED]
MEWA KUMAR TEWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-346] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Appellant is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860. Five persons of whom some are respondents before us instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Varanasi challenging the election of the Managing Committee and other elected officers of the appellant and asked for rendition of accounts. This suit of 1981 is still pending. We are now concerned with the correctness of the finding on the preliminary issue as to whether such a suit is maintainable in the civil court. The defendants' objection to the maintainability is grounded upon the provisions contained in S. 23 and 25 of the Registration Act. The courts below have taken the view that the suit is not barred. That is why the defendants are here by special leave.
(2.)A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has, independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in the civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The position is well settled that exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be either express or implied.
(3.)Reliance has been placed by Mr Mukhoty before us on the ratio of the Constitution bench decision of this court in K. S. Venkataraman and Co. v. State of Madras where reference has been made to the Privycouncil case in Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. governor-General in council. It has been laid down that the civil court's jurisdiction would be presumed unless the contrary is indicated. Mr Mukhoty has also relied a upon two other decisions being Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Dhulabhai v. State of M. P. The legal position thus seems to be clear and it is not necessary to quote further authorities.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.