Here in the case, admittedly the notice of the proposed meeting, according to respondent No. 1 also was issued to appellant and respondent No. 2. The question is whether that notice was legal and valid in view of the mandate of the Memorandum of Association. As stated above, clause 16(C) of the Memorandum of Association lays down that 15 days written notice in advance be given to the members before the election of the members for executive committee. Clause 18 further lays down that the notice of 15 days in advance must be received by the member for any proposed meeting of General Body. Here in the case, admittedly the notice is alleged to be issued on 21/12/1990 and it is stated to be sent Under Certificate of Posting on 22/12/1990 as the meeting was proposed on 06/01/1991 and held on that day, it follows that there was no 15 days in advance notice before the date of meeting. It is apart that as per the case of appellant and respondent No. 2 they had not received the notice and the proof of Under Certificate of Posting cannot be a valid proof of service of notice as there is no acknowledgement receipt.
14. In view of this situation, it is apparent that in the first place 15 days notice in advance was not received by appellant and respondent No. 2 and on this very ground itself the DCC has rightly held that the meeting was not legal, proper and valid. Secondly, ousting of the appellant and respondent No. 2 in the said meeting and induction of some other members in the Executive Committee was also done without giving an opportunity of hearing to appellant and respondent No. 2. Even assuming that they had not paid the subscription fees, on this count also their removal from the membership in the said meeting and induction of some outsider members to the Executive Committee cannot be upheld.
15. Thus, looked at it from any angle, it cannot be said that the Change Report filed by the respondent No. 1 before the DCC on the basis of the resolution passed in the said meeting was legal, valid and correct. The DCC has rightly rejected the same.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
First Appeal No. 359/1998
Decided On: 18.07.2017
Santosh Vs. Purushottam and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.
Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 888
