Indian Association for Canadian Studies Vadodara: 2007

Number - 51

IN THE OFFICE OF MR. Y.L. VYAS, ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, VADODARA.

Change Report Number: 486/2002

Applicant: Prof. Jameela Begum.

Vs

Opponent: Dr. O. P. Juneja.

Subject: Indian Association for Canadian Studies.
Trust Registration No. F/693/Vadodara.

RESOLUTION

The institution named Indian Association for Canadian Studies is registered in this office with Registration Number F/693/ Vadodara and Prof. Jameela Begum, the Applicant, has filed this Change Report with regard to the changes made in the Rules of the Association and also regarding the amendments/ additional rules. On examination of the supporting documents for the Change Report vide enclosures 1/1 and 1/2, it is found that these attachments contain the list of the names of the members of the Executive Committee and office bearers.

Having received the application of objections in this matter vide appendix-2, this matter is considered disputed, and Dr. O. P. Juneja, the Opponent, was served with a notice which was sent to him through Registered Post. This Notice has been sent and the acknowledgement receipts are enclosed in Appendix-4 and Appendix-5.

The applicant has sent a letter (vakilpattrak) appointing Learned Advocate K.C. Vyas as her pleader in this matter vide Appendix- 6 and after that the Opponent has filed his objections vide Appendix-7. The Opponent, Mr. O.P. Juneja has filed his vakilpattarak (Letter of appointment of Advocate) appointing Learned Advocate Niraj N. Shukla as his pleader vide Appendix -9. The objections raised by the Opponent have been replied by the Applicant vide Appendix-10. Appendix-11 contains a list of five documents submitted by the Applicant with a Xerox copy of the Minutes of the General Body Meeting held on 06/01/1995; a Xerox copy of the Letter dated 07/03/1995; a Xerox copy of the Constitution; a Xerox copy of Minutes of the General Body Meeting held on 25/04/1995 and a list of the annexure of 17 documents.

In this matter, the Applicant has submitted written arguments vide Appendix-25 and also vide Appedix-26, a list of three documents containing the Xerox copy of the Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner in the matter of Miscellaneous Application No. 32/02 and also the Affidavit submitted by the Applicant. Dr. Chandra Mohan has submitted an Affidavit against the objections raised by the Opponent. After having received a letter of objections from Dr. Jaydeepsinh K. Dodia in this matter by post, a notice was served to him for a hearing in this matter vide Appendix -31. He has, however, not submitted anything in this matter after that. The Applicant has (also) submitted explanations regarding the changes made in this matter vide Appedix-33. But there is no mention of what kinds of amendments have been made and where in the constitution vide Appendix-1 and that no clarification seems to have been offered regarding this.

In this matter, the Applicant has submitted “Closing Process” vide Appendix-41. And the Opponent has submitted written arguments vide Appendix-46. Opposing his arguments, the Applicant has submitted written arguments vide Appedix-49.The Opponent has submitted his “Closing Process” vide Appedix-50. Thus, both the Applicant and the Opponent have submitted their written arguments in this matter, but neither the Applicant nor the Opponent have given any oral proofs and (further that) they do not wish to give any oral arguments. The matter is thus pending for the Order.

Looking into the facts submitted in the “Change Report” as filed by the Applicant in this matter, some additions have been made to the Rules of the constitution. This is mentioned in Column-1 of the “Change Report” and the fact of the General Body Meeting held in Poona on 06/01/1995 is mentioned in the “Remarks” Column and the fact that the letter dated 07/03/1995 was sent to this office and also a copy of the old constitution is mentioned here. The fact that the copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the General Body held in Delhi on 25/04/1995 is also mentioned here. But, what kind of changes have been made to which particular Rules of the constitution or what additions have been made to the Rules of the Association cannot be inferred from entries made in column-1 and other documents submitted with the Change Report filed by the Applicant. However, the Applicant has submitted an explanation vide Appendix-33. Looking into this document, it is shown as to which Articles of the constitution have been amended, but what changes have been made, (and) what details have been added- these facts have not been mentioned. On examination it seems that the responsibility of finding the facts about which changes have been made or what has been added to the new constitution from the old constitution seems to have been left to this office. In reality, the applicant should very clearly show the details of the additions to the Rules of the constitution of the institution. However, if this Change Report is rejected just on this technical ground, it would not be appropriate in the interest of justice. Hence, after examination of this Change Report as submitted and also the Explanations offered vide Appendix-33, additions seem to have been made to the Preamble and Article-2, Article-4, Article-6, Article-7, Article-8, Article-9, Article-10, 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,24 and 25. However, the fact that which Rules have been added has not been shown. Looking into these amendments, there seem to be additions to most of the Rules of the constitution.

With reference to this Change Report, it is necessary to look at the condition of the records (in our office). On examining the records, it is noted that this institution was registered in 1986 and that there were nine trustees at the time of registration and that they still continue to be the trustees of this institution on our records. Following the succession of trusteeship Rules, the term of office of the Executive Committee is for three years and that after three years the new Executive Committee is to be constituted through elections. However, there is no record of the fact that following this (Rule) any elections have been conducted and hence the Executive Committee which was recorded in 1986 still continues to be in existence. Taking this in account, the Applicant who has filed this Change Report is not a trustee on our records and that there is no clarification regarding the Resolution on the basis of which the Applicant was appointed (a trustee). After the registration of this institution, a Change Report Number 92/95 was filed regarding the amendments in its constitution. In this matter, it is noted that following Section-12 of The Societies Registration Act 1860, this change report (Number 92/95) was filed after a notice was served to the association to call a circular meeting .Taking into consideration these circumstances and also the Rules and Regulations recorded at the time of registration, there are six Clauses and sub Clauses in the old constitution, while 25 Articles are included in the newly submitted constitution. Considering these facts, there are a lot of changes and major amendments in the Rules and Regulations (of the constitution). It is observed that the mode of succession of trustees and the process of election are also included (in these amendments/additions). In the interest of justice, it is therefore necessary to examine this process with reference to section-12 of Societies Registration Act 1860. Under these circumstances, (it is necessary) to examine the fact whether or not this Change Report follows the laid-down procedure.

A list of the members of the Executive Committee during 2001-2003 is presented vide Enclosure Num. 1/3 of this Change Report in which Prof. Jameela Begum is shown as the President and that this Change Report is filed on the basis of a meeting held in 1995. However, there is no submission from the side of the Applicant, that is to say, Prof. Jameela Begum whether or not the Applicant was a member of the Executive Committee in 1995. Not only this but the Opponent in his letter of objections has stated that the Applicant is not a Trustee on the PTR and that the amendments made in the constitution are not according to the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860 and (further) that the General Body Meeting in which these amendments that the Applicant talks about were approved, have never been approved in any meeting. Thus under these circumstances, the onus of proving this fact falls upon the Applicant and for this (purpose) the Applicant has submitted the Xerox copies of the following documents in the list of documents attached to Appendix-11: a Xerox copy of the Minutes of Special General body Meeting held on 06/01/1995 in Poona vide document 11/1; Xerox copy of the note about the meeting held at Delhi University on 5 April 1995 vide document 11/4. If we look at the Xerox copy of the annexures of document Num. 11/5, it presents the following: a Xerox copy of the Resolution passed at the meeting held on 13/05/1994 regarding the appointment of a five member committee for amending the constitution in the interest of the Association; a circular letter and a Xerox copy of the new constitution; Xerox copy of the Note regarding the meeting held on 06/01/1995 at Poona University and Xerox copy of the Note regarding the meeting held on 25/04/1995 at Delhi University. But all these are Xerox copies and there are no reference numbers on them. Therefore, no decision in the matter of this Change Report can be taken on the basis of these. Not only this, whether or not the procedure mentioned in the Order passed on 08/07/1997 on the earlier Change Report 92/95 asking to follow the procedure set in Section-12 of Societies Registration Act 1860 in this matter, has been undertaken or not? And whether or not following the Act, a circular agenda with proposed amendments and additions to the constitution was sent to all the members of the Association? If such an agenda was sent, then the proof of this? And also the proof of whether or not the amended constitution was approved at the General Body Meeting by 3/5th members? The Applicant has given no clarification regarding these (questions). And no proofs have been submitted regarding these. Examining all the minutes of the meetings as submitted (by the Applicant), it is observed that there is no proof has been submitted regarding the number of members who attended these meetings and no proof has been submitted regarding the amendments/additions to be made in the constitution of the association through circular letters sent to all the members. In this matter this Association has registered about 1000 members. Looking to this fact, the Applicant has not proved the fact that the agenda asking the members to attend the meeting for amendment of the constitution with a copy of the constitution to be amended, and a copy of the approval of the amended constitution by the members was sent to all the members. Not only this, no proof has been submitted for whether or not the amended/ added constitution was approved or not in the presence of 3/5th of members at the Two Special General Body Meetings? On the basis of the proofs submitted in this matter, this fact cannot be derived and further that the Applicant has not taken care to present any proof regarding these. (Hence) under the given circumstances, this Change Report for the amendment of the constitution cannot be accepted.

Apart from this, after examining the affidavits filed by the Applicant and Dr. Chandra Mohan, the veracity of the above facts cannot be proved. Under these circumstances, even if the other objections given by the Opponent are not taken into account, this Change Report is not worthy of acceptance because of the fact that the Applicant has not been in a position to prove that the legal procedure set down in Section-12 of the Societies Act 1860 which was mentioned in the Order on the earlier Change Report Num. 92/95 has been followed. Under these circumstances, this Change Report is not worthy of acceptance.

Further that, there are certain facts mentioned in the arguments and their replies put forth by the Applicant and the Opponent. As these do not concern the legality of the issues involved, their mention is not worthy of discussion here. Besides this, the judgements, cited by the Applicant, according to the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act and Societies Registration Act, being not relevant to this case, are not worthy of consideration. Therefore, taking into consideration the above discussion regarding this Change Report and also the written arguments submitted by the Applicant and the Opponent, I pass the following order:

ORDER

This Change Report is rejected. Action should be taken to record this Order on the
PT R and the concerned parties be informed about his Order.

Place: Vadodara (Y.L. Vyas)
Dated: 22/03/2006 Assistant Charity Commissioner
VADODARA

Dr. J.P. Parikh and Professor Uday Shelat, Life Members, IACS and faculty members at the Maharaja Sayajirao Univeristy of Baroda have filed a Civil Suit No. 26/07 in the court of Honourable Shri D.V. Vaidya.
Paintiffs have prayed for the following:
(a) Declare that the Defendants and their agents, office bearers, representatives have no right to issue a notification for or conduct election in any other city than Baroda. Executable decree to this effect may be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.

(b) That the defendants, their agents, office bearers, representatives etc. may be perpetually restrained from malpractices in the elections and from conducting elections in any other city that Baroda. The defendants may be instructed to follow the procedure as laid down in the Constitution as approved by the Assistant Charity Commissioner vide his Order No. 51 Dated 22.3.2006 and decree to that effect may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

The three Defendants in this suit are: 1. Indian Association for Candian Studies, Department of English, M. S. Univeristy of BarodaAuthorised Trustee Dr.O.P. Juneja; 2. Dr. C.P. Ravichandra, President, IACS, university of Mysore and 3. Dr. P.K. Pabby, Secretary, IACS, RL Anad College, Delhi University, Delhi.

Court summons have been issued to present themselves on 5 February 2007. Scanned Copy of the court summons is attached to this message

Indian Association for Canadian Studies Vadodara

Thursday, June 14, 2007

RESULTS OF ICCS ELECTION OF AT-LARGE DIRECTORS

Monday, April 02, 2007

FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF ASSTT CHARITY COMMISSIONER DATED 22 MARCH 2006 IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORIGINAL IN GUJARATI

Saturday, January 27, 2007

DR. C.P. RAVICHANDRA RESIGNS

DR. J.P. PARIKH AND PROFESSOR UDAY SHELAT FILE CIVIL SUIT IN BARODA COURT

Friday, January 26, 2007

OM JUNEJA APPOINTED ON ICCS NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Blog Archive

Links