Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Synopsis

1. Introduction
2. Annual General Meetings Mandatory,
3. Sufficiency of Notice,
4. General Law – Convening of Meetings,
5. Service of Notice,
6. Meeting – Quorum,
7. Agenda of a Meeting,
8. Calling Extra-Ordinary General Body,
9. Drafting and Confirming Minutes,
10. Minutes Signed by Chairman– Evidence,
11. Omission in Minutes,
12. How Minutes Prepared,
13. Rule of Majority,
14. Society or Club: Dissolution ,
15. Adjournment of Meeting,

Provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860:

• 4. Annual list of managing body to be filed:-
• Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar of joint-stock Companies, of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society.

1. Introduction

Sec. 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 postulates holding of Annual General Meeting. These provisions (also the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the society) as to holding Annual General Meetings, are mandatory; and not directory.[1] As per Sec. 2 of the Societies Registration Act the management of the affairs of a society is entrusted with the governing body.  The rules of the society have to direct the details of such entrustment.

It is pertinent to note that the Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not specifically direct ‘election’ of the governing body. But various States’ amendments (and State-Acts) provide for the same. The mode and modalities of formation of the governing body is determinedly left, under Sec.16, to the ‘Rules and Regulations of the society’.

Sec.16 reads:

• Governing body defined: The governing body of the society shall be the governors, council, directors, committee, trustees, or other body to whom by the rules and regulations of the society the management of its affairs is entrusted.

2. Holding Annual General Meetings is a Mandatory Provision

Sec. 4 of the Societies Registration Act requires holding the annual general meeting of the societies, once in every year, according to the rules of the society, and directs holding of an annual general meeting in the months of January, if the rules do not provide for annual general meetings.

It is held in Sarbjit Singh Vs. All India Fine Arts and Crafts Society[2] that the provisions in the Memorandum and Articles of Association for holding Annual General Meetings between April and October are mandatory and not directory. This is so also for the reason that the Societies Registration Act itself postulates holding of Annual General Meeting.

3. Sufficiency of Notice

When a question arose as to whether the provision in the Co-operative Rules that provides 15 clear days notice for moving a no-confidence motion was directory or mandatory, following the Supreme Court decision in Narasimhiah Vs. Singri Gowda[3], it was held in V A Jose Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies[4]that the provision was only directory since the legislature has not provided any consequence that is to follow if 15 clear days notice has not been given and since the petitioner did not explain in what manner he was prejudiced by not getting 15 clear days notice. It was also held that the petitioner being participated in the disputed meeting he had no right to challenge the invalidity in the notice for convening the meeting[5].

In Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings[6], it has been stated:

• Length of Notice: “It is clear: where the regulations provide for a stated period of notice to be given, this requirement must be met or the meeting will be invalid”.

4. General Law with regard to the Convening of Meetings

In Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. Additional Registrar Co-Operative Societies[7] the general law with regard to the convening of meetings has been expressed quoting Shackleton, “Meetings, Law and Practice”, as under:

• “When notice is necessary, the following general rules must be observed.
• 1. Every person, entitled to attend the meeting must be summoned, unless he is beyond reasonable summoning distance or is too ill to attend.
• 2. The notice must be frank, clear and free from trickiness, and if any special business is to be transacted this must be clearly stated.
• 3.The notice must be served strictly in accordance with the regulations of the body on whose behalf it is given and if any particular method is prescribed by Act of Parliament this also must be observed.
• 4. An irregular notice may be ratified by the appropriate body at a subsequent meeting.”

5. Service of Notice

The bye laws being the contract between the members and the club, company or a society, if the bye laws provide provisions for the service of notice, they have to be adhered to. Otherwise, individual notice has be given to all members. Shackleton on the Law of Practice of Meetings says:

• “The Regulations of the body on whose behalf notice is being given usually prescribe the method to be followed. The Rules of a club, for example, may provide that notices of meetings shall be posted at the club house and a copy sent to every member. Where no club rule prescribes a mode, it is within the general functions of the committee of a club to say how notices should be given on each particular occasion. The greater the importance of the matter to be discussed, for example where the expulsion of a club member is to be considered or rules are to be altered, the more the need to send a copy of the notice to each member rather than merely affixing it to the club notice board. On the other hand, in matters affecting clubs the courts eschew a meticulous examination of the rules: reasonableness and fairness are given more weight than a rigid interpretation. In the words of Megarry V.C., “allowance must be made for some play in the joints. In general, if there are no specific provisions, and subject to custom and practice … for example, the following of similar previous arrangements … notice may be given by advertisement: a notice in newspapers[8] convening a meeting of debenture holders under a trust deed has been held good. Where a particular form of service is provided for in the regulations, no other form is permitted; thus, where service by post is stipulated, delivery by dropping the notice into the letter box personally or by handing it to a clerk would not be in order.”

6. Meeting – Quorum

In Punjab University Vs. Vijay Singh Lamba[9] it is held by our Apex Court that the absence of a quorum in the meeting renders the meeting unlawful.

7. Agenda of a Meeting

It is held by the Supreme Court in Myurdhwaj Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Delhi Co-op. Tribunal[10] that a general body can always with the approval of the house in the meeting of its members take up any other matter not covered by the agenda and on that account, no illegality could be held.

It is held in Vice Chancellor, Utkal University Vs. SK Ghosh[11] by our Apex Court that if the Rules of a body require resolutions to be moved and passed in a meeting called for the purpose, then every member of the body entitled to take part in the meeting must be given notice so that he can attend and express his views. Individual assents given separately cannot be regarded as equivalent to the assent of a meeting because the incorporated body is different from the persons of which it is composed. Therefore, it was held that an omission to give proper notice even to a single member in such circumstances would invalidate the meeting and that it would invalidate resolutions which purport to have been passed at it”. It is pointed out in a Kerala decision that each case must be governed by its own facts and no universal rule can be laid down; and that it may well be that in the same body certain things, such as routine matters can be disposed of more easily and with less formality than others. It all depends on the nature of the body and its rules. The substance is more important than the form and if there is substantial compliance with the spirit and substance of the law, an unessential defect in form will not be allowed to defeat what is otherwise a proper and valid resolution. [12]

When there was no agenda with respect to something which would not fall within the category of routine matters but was a matter which was of paramount importance and non inclusion of the same in the agenda goes to the root of the matter (like induction of new members to the society), that cannot be simply whisked away by saying that that can be brought within the last item shown in the agenda ‘other matters as allowed by the President’. [13]

Expulsion of certain members of a Samajam from the committee, and admission of others as committee members, was held to be illegal and improper for those decisions were taken not as item in the agenda, by the Kerala High Court, in St. Philomina Sadhujana Samajam Vs. Mathew.[14]

8. Calling Extra-Ordinary General Body

Even if no specific provision is provided for in the bye laws of a society, the governing body has the power to convene an extraordinary meeting either on their own decision or on the requisition of members.[15]

Subject to the provisions in the Act, if any, applicable and the bye laws, the final authority of every society and club shall vest in the general body[16] of the members in general meeting, summoned in such manner as may be specified in the bye-laws.

9. Drafting and Confirming Minutes

According to Shackleton[17] minutes, as a rule, show only the decisions recorded at a meeting, preceded possibly by a short narration dealing with the essential points leading up to the decision.

In Dr. Chetkar Jha V. Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Verma[18] our Apex Court has observed:

• “The question then is whether the minutes, as drafted and placed before the meeting on July 3, 1963, could be altered as was done on that day. The alteration clearly was not of a minor or a clerical error but constituted a substantial change. Minutes of a meeting are recorded to safeguard against future disputes as to what had taken place thereat. They are a record of the fact that a meeting was held and of the decision taken thereat. Usually they are written up after the termination of the meeting, often from rough notes taken by the person who is to draft them and then are placed before the ‘next meeting for what is generally known as “confirmation”, though they are placed for verification and not for confirmation. Indeed, there is no question of any confirmation at the next meeting of a decision already taken, for, a decision once taken does not require any confirmation. Accordingly, when minutes of a meeting are placed before the next meeting the only thing that can be done is to see whether the decision taken at the earlier meeting has been properly recorded or not. The accuracy of the minutes and not the validity of the decision is, therefore, before the meeting. Once a decision is duly taken it can only be changed by a substantive resolution properly adopted for such a change. When, therefore, a decision is taken and is minuted and such minutes are signed by the Chairman they become prima facie evidence of what took place at the meeting. In the case of company meetings, every meeting of directors or managers in respect of whose proceedings minutes have been so made is deemed to have been properly held and convened and all proceedings had there to have been duly had and all appointments of directors, managers or liquidators are deemed to be valid unless the contrary is proved. (cf. Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ED., Vol. 6, p. 318). This is the position when minutes have been signed by the Chairman. After such signature they cannot be altered. But before the minutes are signed they can be altered if found to be inaccurate or not in accord with what was actually decided. If that were not to be so, it would result in great hardship and inconvenience, for, however, inaccurate they are, they cannot be altered to bring them in conformity with the actual decision. [cf. Talbot, W.F., Company Meetings, (1951 Ed.), p. 82]. This was precisely what was done at the meeting of July 3, 1963 and no objection to the course adopted then by the Chairman and the Syndicate could be validly taken particularly as none present then had raised any protest against the alteration. The decision relied on by Mr. Jha in In re, Botherham Alum and Chemical Company (1883) 25 Ch D 103 is altogether on a different question and cannot be of any assistance.”

If reports are submitted to the meetings, (reports of committee, etc.), it is not usual to set out in extenso the full report, a reference in the minute by which the report can be identified will usually satisfy the most exacting Chairman.  When minutes are signed by the Chairman of the meeting, or the next succeeding meeting, they are prima facie evidence of the proceedings thereat and decisions recorded therein are deemed to be valid until the contrary is proved.

The Chairman of a meeting has prima facie authority to decide all incidental questions which arise at the meeting and an entry by him in the minute book of the result of a poll, or of his decision of all such questions, although not conclusive, is prima facie evidence of that result and the onus of displacing that evidence is thrown on those who impeach the entry.

Where the Chairman made an entry in the minute book that a resolution had been confirmed, the Court, in the absence of evidence that the votes were improperly disallowed, declined to question the decision of the Chairman.

10. Minutes Signed by Chairman– Prima Facie Evidence

Once a decision is duly taken it can only be changed by a substantive resolution properly adopted for such a change. When, therefore, a decision is taken and is minuted and such minutes are signed by the Chairman, they become prima facie evidence of what took place at the meeting[19]. It is held our Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hindustan Construction Co Ltd.[20] that a subsequent decision taken not to confirm the minutes cannot in any way dilutes or wipe out the decision which had already been taken.

The Chairman who signs at the next succeeding meeting need not necessarily have been present at the meeting of which the minutes are a record. If they have previously been circulated he will often sign them without having them read if the meeting so agrees[21]. His action in signing them as merely to record that they are a correct record of the business transacted. If there should be an error in them, of an immaterial kind, such a misspelt word or a clerical error, the alteration could be made by the Chairman and initialed.[22]

There may, however, be occasions, where the Chairman, although having no reason to question the accuracy of the record, refuses to sign the minutes. In such cases a record should be made in the minutes to the effect that the minutes of the previous meeting were correct.[23]

11. Omission in Minutes

If, however, a material point is omitted, it is competent for a member at any time to prove at law the inaccuracy of minutes and have the resolutions set aside.[24]

12. How Minutes Prepared

Shackleton on the ‘Law and Practice of Meetings’,[25] it has been laid down:

• “5. Essential Points in Drafting Minutes: Minutes should commence with the name of the body concerned and give the type of meeting (e.g executive committee). They should state the date, time and place of the meeting and the time the meeting finished (at the end of the minutes). They should also contain a record of the names of the members present and “in attendance,” and whether present for all or part of the meeting or a note of the list attendance sheets or other document where their names may be found. They should also record the name of the member taking the chair.

Minutes should:

• (a) be taken by the person best placed to do so. Independence, discretion and a good understanding of the business of the organization are key here. It is recommended that a member who is required to make a significant contribution to the meeting does not also take the minutes;
• (b) be accurate. If there are any especially complex or technical areas recorded in the minutes, it is good practice to double check these with the relevant member to ensure complete accuracy, whilst preparing the draft minutes. The Chairman of the meeting should be given the opportunity to comment on the first draft before they are circulated to all members;
• (c) be clear and unambiguous. Minutes must be easily understood; not just by the members but by others who may need to glean a good understanding of the company’s business and decision-making e.g. auditors. Avoid too many acronyms and technical language; instead refer to the papers for the detail if the reader requires this;
• (d) be well structured. A good minute taker will be able to omit the recording of discussions which strayed away from the agenda items and were not relevant. He should also re-order the minutes to tie in with the agenda if the meeting was not well chaired and the meeting did not strictly follow the agenda order;
• (e) be concise. Not too long or too short, dependent of course on the culture and style of the organisation and the personal preferences of the Chairman;
• (f) record the essential elements of the discussion on each item, i.e. narration which is vital to an understanding of the proceedings. This will encourage members to speak up next time and also helps remind the organization why they made a particular decision and how they came to it. The full text of all resolutions should be recorded;
• (g) avoid comment and expressions of opinion unless an essential part of the decision-making process;
• (h) be produced in a timely fashion. Minutes should ideally be produced within 48 hours of the meeting to ensure accuracy. The minute taker should agree with the Chairman a sensible time period for distribution of the minutes to members after the meeting, taking into account any annual programme of meetings and the period of time between each. He/she should also agree whether any attendees at the meeting are entitled to receive copies of the minutes. The past tense should be used to record events at the meeting, e.g. “It was reported that,” and the past perfect tense for events prior to the meeting, e.g. “Mr. X reported that he had completed his survey.”

The following are examples of minutes with suggested improvements:

• 1. Mr. X reported that we had secured a further contract on satisfactory terms from the Z Co. Ltd. The use of the word “we” instead of “the company” is a common mistake. In addition, the minute omits important particulars. The following is suggested as a more useful record:
• 1A. Mr. X reported the signature on behalf of the company of a contact dated … .with the Z. Co. Ltd. for the purchase of a further 1,000 tonnes of coal of the same quality as that previously supplied, at … per tonne, to be delivered to the company’s Birmingham factory, delivery as required July/December [year]. The previous contract was at … per tonne. The approval of the contract was ratified. From a directors’ meeting:
• 2. Resolved that transfers of 1,000 Ordinary shares produced be approved and passed. The minute should read:
• 2A. It was resolved that transfers nos….to … inclusive, produced to the meeting, details of transferor and transferee below, relating to 1,000 ordinary shares in the company, be and they are hereby approved for registration and that the common seal of the company be affixed to certificates nos…. to ….relating thereto. From the meeting of a charity:
• 3. Mr Jones said that before we move on to normal business there is a petition which is being presented by the St. Albans branch for the relief of VAT on charities. There are petition forms here tonight and we hope that if possible you will all sign before you leave. An improved version: 3A. The treasurer drew attention to a petition which was being presented by the St Albans branch for the relief of VAT on charities and invited members to sign it at the conclusion of the meeting.

From the minutes of a management meeting:

• 4. Radios, cabs, yard and general housekeeping were extremely poor. General Comment: “A Disgrace” This might be better written as:
• 4A. The attendees felt that the standard of housekeeping, particularly in respect of the radios, cabs and yard, was extremely poor and indeed disgraceful and it was agreed that (action to be taken, by whom and in what timescale.) Within a single paragraph it may not be necessary to introduce every sentence with words which imply reported speech. For example, the minutes of a meeting of the council of an association could (quite correctly) read as follows:
• 5. The chairman expressed disappointment at the figures for 1996. She stressed the need for urgent action, to avoid exhaustion of the reserves. She said that, with additional expenditure on the awards, pressure on resources would be acute. She pointed out that part of the problem resulted from the decision of previous councils not to increase subscription rates. This could be better reported as follows:
• 5A. The chairman expressed disappointment at the figures for 1996. With additional expenditure on the awards, and because previous councils had decided not to increase subscription rates, urgent action was necessary to avoid exhaustion of the reserves. The names of the proposers and seconders of motions are usually shown, but there is no need to record details of voting. Motions which are not seconded need not be recorded although it can be useful in understanding the collective will of members.
• 6. Confirmation of the Minutes: Decisions once arrived at do not need confirmation:
• At a vestry meeting it was the usual procedure to read over at the next meeting the resolutions of the preceding one. At the second of two meetings there was considerable diversity of opinion as to the votes admitted at the first meeting, but judgment was to the effect that there was no necessity for the confirmation by the second vestry of what was legally done at the first, if the first was a legal vestry meeting the election thereat was legal. However, confirmation of the minutes as an accurate record of the decisions made at the previous meeting is usually obtained by submitting them to the chairman of the next meeting for signature. If they have not been previously circulated he will ask the secretary to read them, and, if the meeting confirms (usually on a show of hands) that they are a correct record, he will sign them. If they have previously been circulated, he will sign them without their being read out if the meeting so agrees.

13. Rule of Majority

Every member of a company, club or society joins the same on the basis that the majority would be entitled to determine its affairs.[26]

In Satyavart Sidhantalankar Vs. Arya Samaj, Bombay,[27] it was observed that every member of a corporation or an incorporated company joins the same on the basis that prima facie the majority of members are entitled to exercise powers and control operations generally and the same would be the position in the case of unincorporated associations of individuals whether the same be registered under the Societies Registration Act or not. The rule of majority was held to be the normal basis of these associations. It was determined that the members of such associations know fully well that the affairs of these associations would be conducted normally by the vote of the majority of members thereof and no member would be heard to contend to the contrary.

If the rules of  the society or club provided that the decision of a particular question must be by a majority, the decision would bind all the members unless the act complained of is a fraud on the minority or is ultra vires the society or club. In all other matters about which the rules are silent, the majority does not have any right to coerce the minority[28].

The principle in Milligan Vs. Mitchel[29] and Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun[30] that it is not open for the majority of the members of an association to alter the fundamental principles upon which it is founded unless such a power is specifically reserved is referred to in Prasanna Venkitesa Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao.[31]

In Free Church of England Vs. Overtoun House of Lords (by a majority of 5-2) found that the minority was entitled to the assets of the Free Church. It was observed that when men subscribe money for a particular object, and leave it behind them for the promotion of that object, their successors have no right to change the object endowed. It was further held that, by adopting new standards of doctrine (and particularly by abandoning its commitment to ‘the establishment principle’, which was held to be fundamental to the Free Church), the majority had violated the conditions on which the property of the Free Church was held.

It is held in Inderpal Singh Vs. Avtar Singh[32] that Rule of Law demands and dictates that the people follow the Law. The Constitution, whether of the State or of a Society registered under the Societies Act, is paramount. The doctrine of factum valet is applicable to cure the violation of a directory provision or a mere matter of form but does not cure the violation of the fundamental principles or the essence of the transaction.

14. Unregistered Society or Club – Dissolution on Unanimous Decision

If the Rules of an unregistered society or a club do not contain a provision for the dissolution of the club by a vote of the majority, its dissolution could be brought about only by a unanimous decision.[33]

15. Adjournment of Meeting by the Chairman

In Deodutt Sharma v. Zahoor Ahmed Zaid[34] it is held: 

• “From the aforesaid view of cases the following principles clearly emerge:- 
• 1 That once a meeting had been properly called and it meets the chairman of the meeting can only adjourn it with the consent of the majority of the members subject of course to the rules and regulations of the particular body in relation to which such a question might arise. Thus where a meeting according to a statute or the rules under which it has been called must have a certain quorum and such quorum is not present the chairman will have the authority to adjourn the meeting because in its absence no lawful meeting can be held.
•  2 In the absence of any rule to the contrary the common law doctrine should be held to prevail that the adjournment of the meeting rests with the majority of the members present and is not a matter merely of the pleasure of the chairman.
•  3 An exception to the aforesaid rule which has been almost universally accepted is that where disorder breaks out at a meeting the chairman has an inherent right[35] even if it has not been granted by statute or the rules to adjourn the meeting without consulting the majority.
•  4 These exceptions apart if the chairman adjourns a meeting contrary to the wishes of the members present and thereby interrupts or leaves unfinished the business for which the meeting was summoned the remaining members can lawfully continue the business; and in the absence of their proper chairman it is open to them to elect another chairman to act as his substitute and continue the business and any business which was duly notified in the notice for the meeting could be transacted to completion and if it is so transacted it would be valid.
•  5 Where however the adjournment has been properly ordered by the chairman or it having been ordered the members have acquiesced in it and thereafter it dawns on or strikes some of them to continue the business of the meeting then such continuance should be held to be invalid as being a surprise or a fraud on the members who may have already left the meeting.”

---

[1]      Sarbjit Singh Vs. All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society: ILR 1989-2 Del 585.

[2]      ILR 1989-2 Del 585

[3]      AIR 1966 SC 330

[4]      LR 2007 (1) Ker 10

[5]      See: Shackleton on Law and Practice of Meeting, Eighth Edition, Page 4,         Also Re British Sugar Refining Co. (1857) 3 K & J. 408.

[6]      Ninth Edition, in paragraph 5-08 (8)

[7]      AIR1962 All 439

[8]      Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Thukalan Paulo Avira : AIR 1959 SC 31

[9]      1976 (3) SCC 344

[10]    (1998) 6 SCC 39

[11]    AIR 1954 SC 217

[12]    K. Nanu Vs. C.H. Kunhikrishna Kurup: 2013 Ker LJ 769.

[13]    K.  Nanu Vs. C.H. Kunhikrishna Kurup: 2013 Ker LJ 769;         See M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu- AIR 1999 SC 2468;        Kodiyathur Panchayath Vs. District Panchayath Officer 1977 KLT 80.

[14]    1974 Ker LT 731;         See also: Kodiyathur Panchath Vs.. District Panchayath Officer:  1977 Ker LT 80

[15]    See: Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings (Seventh Edition) Page 120;        Company meetings Law and Procedure by B. K. Sen Gupta (1985), Page 221

[16]    Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Registrar of Societies: ILR 2012-22 Del  1031;        Girish Mulchand Mehta Vs. Mahesh S. Mehta. 2010 (1) Bom. C.R 31

[17]    Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings

[18]    AIR 1970 SC 1832;        Quoted in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hindustan Construction Co.: AIR 2007 SC 425

[19]    Chetkar Jha Vs. Viswanath Prasad Verma:  1971 (1) SCR 586: AIR 1970 SC 1832.

[20]    AIR 2007 SC 425.        Referred to: Chetkar Jha Vs.Viswanath Prasad Verma: AIR 1970 SC 1832.

[21]    Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings

[22]    Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings

[23]    Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings

[24]    Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings

[25]    Tenth Edition, at page 86: Quoted in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hindustan Construction Co Ltd. AIR 2007 SC 425;        See also: (i) The Law and Procedure of Meetings by Matthew Moore, Lecturer in Law at Exeter College, Devon,        (ii) The Law of Meetings in India by Mr. B. A. Masodkar.        (iii) Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Guru Prasanna Singh.

[26]    Satyavart Sidhantalankar Vs. Arya Samaj, Bombay : AIR 1946 Bom  516,

[27]    1946 AIR Bom  516,

[28]    Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. Addl Registrar Co-op Societies AIR1962 All 439;        J.N. Chaudhary Vs. State of Haryana (2014) 11 SCC 249; AIR1991 NOC 78

[29]    40 ER 852

[30]    (1904) AC 515

[31]    AIR 1931 Mad. 12.              

[32]    2007-4 Raj LW 3547

[33]    NF Barwell Vs. John Jackson: AIR 1948 All 146.        It is considered in Shridhar Misra Vs. Jaichandra Vidyalankar: AIR1959  All 598;        See also Jamiat Ulama Vs. Maulana Mahmood Asad Madni: ILR 2008 -17 Dlh 1950;        Raja Himanshu Dhar Singh Vs. Addl Regtr Co-Op. Societies: AIR1962 All 439

[34]    AIR 1960 Raj 25

[35]    See also: John Vs. Rees: 1969 (2) All ER 274

---

---