- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act on 12-1-1998. respondent No. 2 was the Treasurer. He filed a complaint on 17-5-1990 to respondent No. 1 with a copy to the petitioner. THE complaint was in respect of operation of Bank Accounts and taking away the account papers by the Secretary and to finalise the annual accounts of the Society as well as the Institute for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99, for not calling any meeting of the general body as per rules and to stop all illegal and unathorised activities. During the pendency of complaint, respondent Nos. 2 to 6 voluntarily resigned on 24- 6-1999 from the membership of the Society, which was accepted on 1-7-1999. Sri Mahesh Chandra, respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 on 14-7-1999 confirming his resignation from the membership of the Society and requested that the complaint against the Society dated 17-5-1999 may be treated as withdrawn and cancelled. The petitioner vide letter dated 19-7-1999 also requested the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Meerut that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 may be treated as withdrawn. Notice was issued by the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut on 5-6-1999 and the petitioner in compliance of the notice submitted his reply/explanation and again brought to his notice about/tendering resignations by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and requested respondent No. 1 that in the explanation the dispute raised by respondent No. 2 was beyond his jurisdiction. respondent No. 2 also filed an affidavit dated 30- 8-1999 enclosing the photo copy of forged minutes book having no signatures of members of society dated 14-1-1998, 1-4-1999 and 28-4-1999 alongwith other documents and prayed that the petitioner alongwith all other members be declared disqualified from the membership of the society. The petitioner also filed an affidavit on 14-10- 1999 in reply of queries made by respondent No. 1. respondent No. 2 filed the counter reply on 10-12- 1999 in reply to the affidavit of the petitioner dated 14-10-1999, inter alia, requesting respondent No. 1 to remove all the office bearers and the matter may be referred for decision before the Prescribed Authority. The Minute books of the meeting dated Ist July, 1999 are as under: 1. To consider the resignation of the following:, Minutes of the east meeting road over and approved. (a) Shri Satya Prakash,the Secretary informed that resignations have been received from Shri Satya Prakash,, Sri Mahesh Chand,, Bharat Bhushan,, Shri Bhagwari Prasad Agarwal and Sri Vivek Agrawal from promoter membership. These members are present. They are requested to withdraw their resignation letters. (b) Shri Mahesh Chand (c) Shri Bharat Bhusan (d) Shri Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal (e) Shri Vivek Agarwal and to consider the refund of Rs. two lakhs as paid for promoter membership. , Any other matter. dated 24-6-99. They refused to withdraw their resignations. They insided that the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by them earlier as promoter membership fee be refunded. No objection was raised by any member. So Unanimously resignations of the above named five persons are accepted and the matter of refund of promoter membership fee of Rs. two lakhs each may be referred to the General Body. No other matter was taken up and no permission was sought from the chair for any other matter. Meeting concluded with thanks to the chair. B. K. Usha Educational Society B. K. Usha Educational Society Sd/- Secretary Sd/- President.
(3.) IT is alleged that respondent No. 1 instead of making a reference assumed the jurisdiction inspite of request to make reference, decided the matter holding that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 be treated as continuing members of the society ignoring completely their resignations dated 24-6-1999 and further holding that resignation letters were conditional i. e. no resignation was valid till the subscription amounts deposited by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are not paid back to them. The short question that requires decision in this case is whether the resignation submitted by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were conditional or not.;