Indian Association for Canadian Studies has more than one thousand members from India, Canada, United States, and other countries. Established in 1985 by Professor Om Prakash Juneja and others at the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, it is the largest Canadian Association among thirty such associations all over the world. It has created a sizable body of knowledge on issues common to India and Canada by building bridges of understanding between two countries during the last two decades by holding conferences, seminars, and workshops, exchange of teachers and students and publishing books. More recently, it was inactive because of a dispute regarding its trusteeship, which was settled by the Charity Commissioner in favour of the Founding Trustees from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda a few months ago.
The Association had its 24th Annual Conference at H. M. Patel Institute of English, Vallabh Vidyanagar 0n 10-11 April 2010. It elected its new office bearers with Professor Om Juneja as President, Professor Ranjana Harish as Vice President, Dr. Vimal Dhawan, as Secretary and Dr. Dinkar Nayak as Treasurer, while Dr. Alice Anugraham, Professor Adesh Pal and Dr. P. Selvam were elected as members of the Executive Committee.
Assuming the Presidency of the Association, Professor Juneja stated that with the revival of Indian Association for Canadian Studies after a period of three years, the hopes of its members are high, particularly because the relations between Canada and India are on upturn. There have been 11 Canadian ministerial visits to India over the past two and a half years, including five in the last year alone. Kamal Nath, India’s Commerce minister visited Canada recently and the Prime Minister of India is scheduled to visit Canada soon.
India’s emergence as a major global actor in the economic sphere, asserted Juneja, has attracted such companies as Bombardier to build metros in Delhi and other cities. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit to India in November 2009 has resolved the nuclear issue between the two countries. Canada hosts the largest Indian Diaspora community of any Western country relative to the size of its overall population. This human bridge between India and Canada is the most solid foundation of the bilateral relationship, asserted Juneja who plans to study particularly the contribution of the Gujarati diaspora in Canada. * Source: www.southasiamail.com for 15 April 2010 under Community News
I received your mail yesterday, as I was busy with the 24th IACS Annual Conference at Vallabh Vidyanagar. The averment and submission made in your faxed letter and email are totally unjustified, improper, illegal, and one-sided and the language used by you is highly objectionable. You have distorted the facts to suite your convenience and have not taken the interest of the life members of the Association in consideration. The factual position of the application No. 15/2010 filed by you is as follows:
In your application you had prayed for –
a)To stay the operation of 24th Conference
b)To stay the holding of the elections of IACS on 11 April 2010
c)To stay holding of the General Body Meeting on 11 April 2010
d)To appoint a Returning Officer for the EC Elections and an Observer to oversee elections on a reasonable date and at reasonable venue in the near future
e)To give other suitable relief as the Hon’ble Joint Charity Commissioner deems fit.
The Joint Charity Commissioner in his Order of 09/04/2010 (copy enclosed) has not allowed a stay on any of the operations that you had prayed for. He has not agreed to appoint a returning officer and observer to oversee election etc. So the question of staying the proceedings of the Conference, the Elections, and the General Body as you have stated in your letter does not arise. Your letter is therefore false, illegal and a deliberate misinterpretation of the Court Order.
It emerged from your application and deposition that you have prayed for staying the Election and the General Body Meeting of IACS in the name of Indian Association for Canadian Studies as if you were the Association. This is self contradictory because the Association cannot challenge the Elections and AGM that it has declared.
It emerged during the proceedings before the Joint Charity Commissioner that everybody agreed to accept the nominations filed pursuant to election notification dated 10/2/2010. The only understanding arrived at during the meeting arranged by Canadian High Commission in Delhi on 25/2/2010 was to change the dates of conference and election. Accordingly, the conference and the elections were rescheduled from 13-14 March to 10-11 April 2010. However, you still wish to challenge this action which in fact is a violation of the principle of Estoppel. It is a matter of regret that you could not obtain any court order against election/AGM. Despite this, you have chosen to send email as if you are the lawful authority to issue prohibitory order. This action of yours is nothing more than the contempt of the authority of the Joint Charity Commissioner.
In your mail, the name of V. D. Kaushik is mentioned. By giving his name in this mail, Professor Kaushik, like you have challenged this Order, which is surprising. Pursuant to the Election Notification of 10/2/2010 he had filed his nominations for elections, which he withdrew later. Dr. Krishna Kanta Kaushik, his wife also participated in the election process by contesting for the post of EC Member. It is surprising to note this contradiction because on the one hand, Dr. Kaushik has signed this letter asking to stay the election proceedings and on the other hand, he wishes to participate in the proceedings.
Please note that Dr. R. K. Dhawan, the Acting President and said “operating trustee” had also filed his nominations, which he withdrew a day before the election date. I may bring it to your attention that he has fully participated in the Conference, has chaired a session, and has attended the General Body Meeting held on 11/4/2010. Dr. Dhawan was pleased with the success of the Conference/ Election proceedings and Annual General Body Meeting which can be verified from the fact that he did not think it proper to raise any objection during the two day proceedings either orally or in writing.
Following the advice of the Joint Charity Commissioner that you have mentioned in your email, it would have been appropriate for you to come to Anand. To follow the court order in letter and spirit, it would have been fitting for you, like Dr. R. K. Dhawan to participate in the proceedings of the Conference, Elections, and AGM, which you have not done. You have thus not followed the spirit of the court order that calls upon both the parties to work in the interest of the Association.
You may be glad to know that more that 200 delegates from far away places like Coimbtore, Chinnai, Bangalore, Pune, Madurai, Warangal, Delhi, Orissa and Bhopal participated in the conference. There were others from nearby places like Baroda, Anand, Surat, Ahmedabad, Amreli and Rajkot also. All of them listened to 48 presentations, a panel discussion on Canadian Studies in India and a key note address from an industrialist who has an on going partnership with a Canadian company on the theme of “Building Bridges : Canada India Partnerships”.
As you know, now all the legal proceedings are over and there are no cases pending before any court. The three court orders no.468/02 of 22 March 2006, Final Order No. 38/06 of 28 August 2009 and the Order No. 15/2010 of 09 April 2010 have established the claims of the Founding trustees and the validity, legality and justification of the 24th Annual Conference, Elections of the EC and the AGM. Therefore, you are called upon to submit all the records to the newly elected EC and transfer the sums of money in the illegal Bank Account that you have with State Bank of India, Delhi University South Campus, New Delhi to the legal Bank Account of Indian Association for Canadian Studies with Indian Bank, Fatehgunj Branch, Baroda. By doing so, you would follow the Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner passed on 09 April 2010 in letter and spirit that will help to revive the Association after a lapse of three years.
With this, I am sending the Minutes of the Election Committee Meeting announcing the results of the election held on 11 April 2010 and the photograph of the newly elected office bearers and EC members as attachments to this mail.
DEAR PROFESSOR O.P. JUNEJA AND DR.J.K.DODIYA, C/O, H. M PATEL INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH TRAINING AND RESEARCH, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR 388120, GUJARAT. THE JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER DELIVERED THE JUDJEMENT AT ABOUT 8:00 PM .ON OUR APPLICATION NO.15/2010 TODAY AND HE CALLED ALL OF US IN HIS COURT ROOM.YOU WERE REPRESENTED BY YOUR ADVOCATE MR. JOSHI AND WE WERE PERSONALLY PRESENT. THE JT.C.C.,IN FRONT OF THE ADVOCATES ADVISED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES SHOULD SIT TOGETHER AND DECIDE ABOUT THE FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION IN THE INTEREST OF I.A.C.S. ACCORDINGLY,BOTH OF YOU ARE REQESTED NOT TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION PROCESS AND GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE I.A.C.S. ON 10/11 APRIL 2010 BECAUSE,YOU ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO CONDUCT THESE AS YOU ARE NOT IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE I.A.C.S. AND YOU ARE NOT HAVING ANY OFFICIAL RECORD FOR THE ELECTION PROCESS.MOREOVER THE ELECTION CIRCULARS ISSUED BY YOU ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF I.A.C.S. THEREFORE,YOU ARE HEREBY RESTRAINED FROM TAKING LAW IN YOUR HANDS TO PROCEED FURTHER.EVEN THEN IF YOU WILL PROCEED WITHOUT OUR INSTRUCTIONS ,THE SO CALLED ELECTION SHALL NOT BIND THE INSTITUTION AS WELL AS US. WE HOPE YOUR ADVOCATE MUST HAVE INFORMED YOU ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF THE COURT.
I write this in response to the circular letter No. 01/2010 dated 12 February 2010 of Dr. Pabby asking all the members not to participate in the 24th Conference and the Election.
I may assure you that the 24th Annual Conference is being organised following the full legal procedure and will be held on April 10-11, 2010 at H M Patel Institute of English Training and Research, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand, Gujarat. I therefore request you not to believe the canard spread by a few disgruntled vested interests and participate in the Conference and the Elections.
The circular letter of Dr. Pabby has mainly raised three issues regarding the 24th Annual Conference and the Elections to be held on April 10-11, 2010. They are: a) status of Professor Juneja as authorised Trustee and Secretary 1986 EC; b) Current EC as the Operative authorised trustees and c) Reconciliation Meeting held on 25 February 2010. a) O. P. Juneja as Authorised Trustee: Dr. O. P. Juneja was “authorised to get the registration work done under Society Registration Act of 1860 and also to act where necessary in any Government or semi Govt. office for the same society” vide Resolution 1 on 20th February 1985 at M. S. University of Baroda. It is this Resolution which is registered on PTR-1 in the office of the legal authority. No other Resolution authorising any one else is registered with the legal authority. Pursuant to the judgements of the Joint Charity Commissioner and Assistant Charity Commissioner Vadodara, an Extraordinary Meeting of the Founding Trustees was held in the Syndicate Room No. 3 at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad on 07 February 2010 to revive the Association. The following Resolution-2 to was passed authorising Professor Juneja : “Following Article VI of the Constitution regarding Elections, it is resolved that Professor Juneja is authorised to complete all such procedures including the conduct of elections and filing the “Change Report” in the office of the Charity Commissioner Vadodara.” Dr. O. P. Juneja was the Founding Secretary of IACS from 1985-1988. It was noted in the Reconciliation Meeting held at Canadian High Commission in New Delhi on 25 February 2010. Dr. Pabby attended that meeting. b) Current EC as the Operative Trustees: A few facts are to be noted about the Current EC which, in fact, is totally illegal because of the following reasons: The term of the office of this EC was over in 2007. IACS Constitution allows only three months for extension of term and not three years. No elections were held in 2007 when they were due because of the Order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in May 2006 that rejected all the “Change Reports” and the Constitution of 1995 and re-established the constitution of 1986 and the Founding Trustees. Accepting the judgement of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, the then President resigned. Both the judgements of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner of 2006 and that of Joint Charity Commissioner of 2009 have rejected the claim of the current prorogued EC as Operative Trustees of IACS. Some members of the current EC, in fact, have been fined Rs. 2000/= by the Joint Charity Commissioner in his Final Order and have been asked to pay all the legal expenses from their own pockets and not from IACS. The claim of the current EC as the Operative Trustees is false. The legal authorities have rejected it twice.
c) Reconciliation Meeting: Some facts about the Reconciliation Meeting held at Canadian High Commission in Delhi on 25 February 2010. The Meeting was convened by Canadian High Commission in Delhi and the Minutes were prepared by the High Commission and signed by seven people. A scanned copy can be found at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com The election dates as declared in the original notice were March 13-14, 2010. It was decided to postpone the Conference either to April 10-11, or to 17-18, 2010. As the guest houses were not available during April 17-18, it was decided to choose Apil 10-11 and the current President and High Commission was informed immediately. Following the agreement in letter and spirit, the Notice for Calling the AGM was prepared for co-signing by the current President and the Secretary (1986 EC). As the President refused to sign, the Authorised Trustee and Secretary issued the Notification with his signatures only. The Returning Officer issued addendum to Election Notice after waiting for the additional names till the printing of the Notification on March 9, 2010. The President, who was in Baroda, made frantic calls to the Secretary in Delhi to send these names. As the Secretary did not oblige, it was decided to send the Addendum without any additions for printing. Both the President and the High Commission were informed immediately. The possibility of holding Conference at Ahmedabad was explored. The Authorised Trustee talked to and sent emails to Reaney Canadian Centre and to Vision Education Trust in Ahmedabad. As both of them refused to host, it was decided to continue with Vallabh Vidyanagar. All concerned parties were informed accordingly.
Some More Facts: It is interesting to note that this letter is dated 12 February 2010 when it mentions a meeting held on 25 February 2010.
This letter makes no mention of the judgement of Assistant Charity Commissioner of May 2006 rejecting all the Change Reports, the Constitution of 1995 and establishes the 1986 EC as the only legal EC. For detailed information, please visit our blog at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Please note that though the letter is written in the name of the Current EC, the President (Dr. R.K. Dhawan) informs me that he has refused to sign this letter as it is in contravention of the agreement that we signed on 25 February in the presence of the officials of Canadian High Commission. I would therefore like to surmise that this letter reflects the views of a very small group of persons within the current EC, though illegal.
Yours in IACS, Om P. Juneja, Authorised Trustee and Emeritus Professor
I invite you to attend the 24th Annual Conference of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies to be held on 10-11 April 2010 at H. M. Patel Institute of English at Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand in Gujarat. Your are invited to send an abstract of their papers preferably through email in about 300 words by March 25, 2010 to the coordinator of the Conference at the following address: Professor Rajendrasinh Jadeja, Director, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research ,Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat 388120. Email: iacsvadodara@gmail.com Please note that there is no registration fee for the conference and we shall be happy to provide accommodation on twin sharing basis and all the meals free of cost.
As you know, the last AGM was held at Jammu in 2007. Since then IACS has had no activity because the legally competent authorities had declared the then EC illegal. However, some members of this illegal EC filed an Appeal against the order of Assistant Charity Commission passed in May 2006. This Appeal was dismissed on 29 August 2009 and the following Final Order was passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
THE FINAL ORDER I. The appeal is dismissed. II. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay from his/her personal properties the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each that falls to each one’s share to the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara within 30 days. III. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to redeposit into the trust funds from their personal property the amount as it falls to each one’s share towards all collective expenses that have been incurred from the trust funds towards the legal suit within 30 days. IV. It has been informed that until orders are issued from the competent authority the work has to be carried out in the interest of the organization and in the public interest following the provisions mentioned in the document framed at the time of the foundation of the organization. V. The order has to be conveyed to all concerned respondents of the suit and its copy will have to be sent to the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara. The original record has to be sent back.
In order to implement the Order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner of 2006 and the Final Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner of 2009, an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Trustees (Executive Committee of IACS as of 1986) was held on 07 February 2010 at 11.00 a.m. at Indian Institute of Management in Syndicate Room No.3 in Ahmedabad. It was resolved that the legal proceedings undertaken are in favour of the organisation and particularly so because the lawful authorities have passed the orders whereby the illegal actions of all those who filed the “Change Reports” are disapproved. The legal proceedings undertaken by Professor Juneja are approved. Further, that Professor Juneja is authorised to complete all such procedures including the conduct of election of the Executive Committee . Hence, the Notice for Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 was issued on 10 February 2010 for the Elections scheduled to be held on 14th March 2010.
As some members requested for the postponement of the election date, IACS Election reconciliation meeting was held at the High Commission of Canada, New Delhi on 25 February 2010 (copy enclosed) and a it was decided to postpone the elections to April 11, 2010. You may read the Minutes (signed by R. K. Dhawan, D. K. Pabby, V. D. Kaushik of the current EC, Vimal Dhawan and O. P. Juneja and three officials of Canadian High Commission) of this Meeting at our blog at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com. “The circular letter for holding General Body will be co-signed by current IACS President and the 1986 Secretary” is one of points agreed upon in this signed document. However, Dr. R. K. Dhawan has refused to sign this letter.
It is abundantly clear that Dr. R. K. Dhawan and the illegal EC have decided not to honour this agreement that they signed in the presence of the officials of the High Commission of Canada on 25 February 2010. It is a repetition of the earlier Reconciliation Agreement that they signed in the presence of Mr. Jean Labrie and others from Government of Canada in September 2007 not to honour it at all.
We have sent 867 letters to all the Life Members of IACS by Post Under Postal Certificate that you would be receiving in a few day. In the meanwhile, you may please respond by just replying this mail.
Hoping to see you at the 24th IACS Conference,
Yours in IACS,
Om P. Juneja Authorized Trustee Secretary (1986 EC) Telephone: (0265) 2793366 Mobile: 97262 89064. Email: omjuneja@gmail.com URL : http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
I invite you to attend the 24th Annual Conference of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies to be held on 10-11 April 2010 at H. M. Patel Institute of English at Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand in Gujarat. Your are invited to send an abstract of their papers preferably through email in about 300 words by March 25, 2010 to the coordinator of the Conference at the following address: Professor Rajendrasinh Jadeja, Director, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research ,Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat 388120. Email: iacsvadodara@gmail.com Please note that there is no registration fee for the conference and we shall be happy to provide accommodation on twin sharing basis and all the meals free of cost.
As you know, the last AGM was held at Jammu in 2007. Since then IACS has had no activity because the legally competent authorities had declared the then EC illegal. However, some members of this illegal EC filed an Appeal against the order of Assistant Charity Commission passed in May 2006. This Appeal was dismissed on 29 August 2009 and the following Final Order was passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
THE FINAL ORDER I. The appeal is dismissed. II. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay from his/her personal properties the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each that falls to each one’s share to the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara within 30 days. III. All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to redeposit into the trust funds from their personal property the amount as it falls to each one’s share towards all collective expenses that have been incurred from the trust funds towards the legal suit within 30 days. IV. It has been informed that until orders are issued from the competent authority the work has to be carried out in the interest of the organization and in the public interest following the provisions mentioned in the document framed at the time of the foundation of the organization. V. The order has to be conveyed to all concerned respondents of the suit and its copy will have to be sent to the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara. The original record has to be sent back.
In order to implement the Order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner of 2006 and the Final Order of the Joint Charity Commissioner of 2009, an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Trustees (Executive Committee of IACS as of 1986) was held on 07 February 2010 at 11.00 a.m. at Indian Institute of Management in Syndicate Room No.3 in Ahmedabad.
It was resolved that the legal proceedings undertaken are in favour of the organisation and particularly so because the lawful authorities have passed the orders whereby the illegal actions of all those who filed the “Change Reports” are disapproved. The legal proceedings undertaken by Professor Juneja are approved. Further, that Professor Juneja is authorized to complete all such procedures including the conduct of election of the Executive Committee.
Hence, the Notice for Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 was issued on 10 February 2010 for the Elections scheduled to be held on 14th March 2010.
As some members requested for the postponement of the election date, IACS Election reconciliation meeting was held at the High Commission of Canada, New Delhi on 25 February 2010 (copy enclosed) and a it was decided to postpone the elections to April 11, 2010. You may read the Minutes (signed by R. K. Dhawan, D. K. Pabby, V. D. Kaushik of the current EC, Vimal Dhawan and O. P. Juneja and three officials of Canadian High Commission) of this Meeting at our blog at: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com. “The circular letter for holding General Body will be co-signed by current IACS President and the 1986 Secretary” is one of points agreed upon in this signed document. However, Dr. R. K. Dhawan has refused to sign this letter.
It is abundantly clear that Dr. R. K. Dhawan and the illegal EC have decided not to honour this agreement that they signed in the presence of the officials of the High Commission of Canada on 25 February 2010. It is a repetition of the earlier Reconciliation Agreement that they signed in the presence of Mr. Jean Labrie and others from Government of Canada in September 2007 not to honour it at all.
We have sent 867 letters to all the Life Members of IACS by Post Under Postal Certificate that you would be receiving in a few day. In the meanwhile, you may please respond to register by just replying this mail.
Please note that there is NO REGISTRATION FEE. FREE ACCOMMODATION ON TWIN SHARING BASIS WITH ATTACHED BATH AND MEALS will be available to all registered delegates.
Hoping to see you at the 24th IACS Conference,
Yours in IACS,
Om P. Juneja Authorized Trustee Secretary (1986 EC) Telephone: (0265) 2793366 Mobile: 97262 89064. Email: omjuneja@gmail.com URL : http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
SUB: ADDENDUM TO THE ELECTION NOTICE FOR IACS ELECTIONS 2010-2013
The Notice for Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 was issued on 10 February 2010 for the Elections scheduled to be held on 14th March 2010. As some members requested for the postponement of the election date, a meeting was held at the High Commission of Canada, New Delhi on 25 February 2010 and it was decided to postpone the elections to April 11, 2010. It was also decided that all nominations received as per the earlier notification (February 10, 2010) will continue to be considered.
Please note that the Election to the IACS EC for 2010-2013 will now be held on 11 April 2010 at the same venue as decided earlier, that is, at H. M. Patel Institute of English, Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, which is the venue of the 24th IACS Conference. All those candidates who have sent their nomination forms to the Returning Officer in Rajkot need not send them again.
Following shall be the Schedule of Elections because of change in the date of Elections:
(a)Last date for the receipt of nominations 01 April 2010 (b)Scrutiny and Display of Nominations 10 April 2010 1.00 P.M. (c)Last Date for withdrawal of Nominations 10 April 2010 2.00 P.M. (d)Declaration of Final Nominations 10 April 2010 6.00 P.M. (e)Date and Time of Elections 11 April 2010 11A.M. - 2.00 P.M. (f)Announcement of the Results 11 April 2010 4.00 P.M.
Further that all nominations will be sent to the Returning Officer, Dr. Jaydipsinh K. Dodiya, Associate Professor, Department of English, Saurashtra University, Rajkot 380 005 (Gujarat) on or before 01 April 2010 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due . In case you have not received the Nomination Form, please download it from http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
Yours in IACS,
(Dr. Jaydipsinh K. Dodiya) Returning Officer Election Committee Dr. Anant Shukla Dr. Hitesh Parmar Prof. Kalpna Jani
It gives me pleasure to invite you to the Annual General Body Meeting of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies on April 11, 2010 at 4 P.M. at the venue of the Annual Conference to be held at H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research, Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand - 388120 to discuss the following Agenda.
AGENDA
1. Confirmation of the minutes of the last General Body meeting held at Jammu University on 27 February 2007. No copies of the Minutes are attached as the minutes have not been submitted by the then Secretary. 2. Declaration of results of the IACS elections for the term 2010-13. 3. Future Activities and proposals. 4. Any other item with the permission of the Chair.
(O. P. Juneja) Authorised Trustee & Secretary (1986 EC)
For any query / information, members may also contact:
Om P. Juneja Emeritus Professor, HMPIETR 101 Dwarkamai, 25/ B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390002 Email: omjuneja@gmail.com Telephone: 91-265-2793366 Mobile: 9726289064 URL: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot.com
REVISED DATES FOR CALL FOR PAPERS 24th ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON CANADIAN STUDIES
Dates: April 10-11, 2010 Theme: Building Bridges: Canada-India Partnership Host: H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research, Vallabh Vidya Nagar, 388120, Anand, Gujarat.
Building Bridges: Canada-India Partnership Papers are invited on all the areas of possible collaboration and partnership between India and Canada including business and trade, cultural exchanges, education, health care, science, and technology, sharing and creating knowledge and on such common matters as multiculturalism, democracy, national security, involvement in Afghanistan and other issues that matter both to India and Canada. Following are some topics for paper presentations: Strategic Partnerships between Indian and Canadian companies Investment Opportunities: Canada and India Indo-Canadian Diaspora Climate Change, Environment, and Ecology Building bridges of friendship through literature and performing arts Films: Indo-Canadian Films and Film makers Immigration to Canada Partnership in Higher Education Synergy in Energy: hydro, thermal, and nuclear power Building Infrastructure, Railways, Cars, and Trucks Aviation Industry and Aerospace Establishing Democracy in Afghanistan Digital Media Members are invited to send an abstract of their papers preferably through email in about 300 words by March 25, 2010 to the coordinator of the Conference at the following address.
Please note that there is No Registration Fee. Accommodation on twin sharing basis with attached bath and Meals will be provided free of cost to the delegates.
Conference Coordinator
Professor Rajendrasinh Jadeja Director, H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Anand, Gujarat 388120 Email: iacsvadodara@gmail.com Telephone: 91-2692-230079
For any query / information, members may also contact: Om P. Juneja Emeritus Professor, HMPIETR and Authorised Trustee, IACS 101 Dwarkamai, 25/ B Pratapgunj, Vadodara 390002 Email: omjuneja@gmail.com Telephone: 91-265-2793366 URL: http://www.iacsvadodara.blogspot
Petitioner:The President, Indian Association for Canadian Studies, Vadodara,
Department of English, University of Mysore, Manas Gangotri,
Mysore.
Respondent:Dr. O. P. Juneja, Department of English, M.S.University of
Baroda, Vadodara.
Advocates: 1. Shri S. I. Patel,Petitioner’s lawyer
2. Shri R. M. Joshi, Respondent’s lawyer
Subject:The Bombay Public Trust Act 1950, vide the Item No. 70…
Indian Association for Canadian Studies, Vadodara.
Registration No. F/ 693, Vadodara.
RESOLUTION
(1). On being dissatisfied with the order issued on date 22/3/06 in view of the Change Report. No. 468/2002, the President, Indian Association for Canadian Studies, Vadodara has filed the present appeal vide the Public Trust Registration No. F/693/Vadodara under The Bombay Public Trust Act 1950, Item No. 70. The main matters that are submitted through the Appeal No. 38/06 are also entered under the registration of the said organization under the Society Registration Act 1860 and under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 too. The same have been submitted in the Change Report No 468/02 with due notarization. All required supportive evidences were presented, yet the present order has been issued ignoring any such evidences and considering the abjections raised by the opponent the Change Report has been rejected.Being dissatisfied with it, the present dispute has been entered before the court. Even if the Society Registration Act 1860 stays as the Central Act its provisions are ignored and the present order has been issued on 22/3/06 only on the ground of wrong interpretations of the Item No. 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950.Since the order carries a flaw of serious kind in the first instance it is fit to be cancelled in the first instance. Since the reasons mentioned in view of the said appeal seem to go against equity laws of natural justice it is fit to be rejected in the first instance.Since it has been issued on the ground of wrong interpretation of the evidences it is fit to be rejected. Since the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner possesses no powers or authority to reject it under the provisions of the Society Registration Act 1860 it is fit to be rejected.The learned Assistant Commissioner mentions a reason that the change report does not conform with the provisions of the Society Act, but he has not provided any support for it. Hence the order is fit to be rejected.Showing all such matters, a petition has been filed asking for justice and also to grant approval to the Change Report No 468/ 02. Along with it, the documents submitted are a copy of the Change Report, an attested copy of the Resolution of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, No 2. the Lawyer’s Power of Attorney, No. 3 Copy of the Notice, No. 4 Letter of the time permissible (mudat),No. 5 the Lawyer’s Power of Attorney, No. 6 Application to permit time (mudat), No. 7 Copy of the office letter demanding the record, No. 5 Letter of the Chief, Vadodara demanding the records, No. 9 to 13 Details of the application to permit time, No. 14 the details of the letter of the President, Indian Association for Canadian Studies that states, “Both the parties, viz. Indian Association for Canadian Studies and Professor O. P. Juneja have reached to an amiable agreement and hence the appeal is being withdrawn”, No. 14/1 Reconciliation Agreement, No 15. Reminder and the Copy of the Reconciliation Agreement, No. 16 Letter in reference of the Change Report No. 468/02 and No. 17 Letter No. 1162, dated 29th May, 2006 in which the main matter is ‘amiable agreement and hence the Appeal is being withdrawn’ and a copy of the Reconciliation Agreement along with it and No. 18 Letter in the matter of the time permitted.Thus, the details submitted in view of the present suit are found to be on the record.
(2)The said petitioner (applicant) has filed an appeal in view of his dissatisfaction with the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara in view of the Change Report No. 468/ 02.Since the said petition has been entered, considering it the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has issued the present order with detailed analysis. One of the matters mentioned in the order is that no reference is made or clarification has been provided to the effect what kinds of amendments are entered in the Constitution.On behalf of the petitioner, the Closing Purshis has been submitted vide No 41.The arguments have been raised by the respondent vide No. 46.Against the objections raised by the respondent arguments are filed in written on behalf of the petitioner vide No 49 and the petitioner has submitted the Closing Purshis vide No 50.No oral evidences are presented from the either of the parties and as they are not willing so the matter is left to the order.Looking at the fact sheet No 1 and the papers enclosed with it, it does not get clear which rules of the constitution are amended and what kind of amendments are made. The petitioner has submitted the clarification vide No 33, but he does not mention what amendments are made or which matters are added. Looking at the amendments it is found that in majority rules from among the rules of the constitution merely additions to the rules are noticed. The constitution was registered in 1986 following duly the procedure of nominating a trustee to follow, and the same trustees continue to be on the record.Hence, it is known from the record that an election is not held as per the tradition of a follower. As indicated in Item 12 of the Society Registration act 1860, it needs to be verified whether the said procedure has been followed as it is required to follow in the interest of justice.Further, whether the circular agenda has been issued to all registered members along with the amended copy, whether any evidences are submitted for it, or whether the amended constitution has been approved of in the presence of the 3/5 members present at the special general meeting, no clarification to the effect has been submitted by the petitioner or no evidences are presented by him before the court.No evidence has been submitted to the effect that the circular has been sent to all the members of the organization. In view of the case, considering that the organization has 1000 registered members on its list, the copy of the amended constitution and its approval and any agenda sent to the members are not found to be submitted as proof on behalf of the petitioner. Not only that, looking at the proofs submitted in view of the suit it is not proved whether the amendments proposed in the constitution were approved in the presence of 3/ 5 members at the two special meetings, nor the petitioner has cared to submit the evidences to that effect.Further, the petitioner has not been able to prove that the society follows the legal procedure mentioned in the item 12 of the Society Registration Act 1860, etc. On considering the details submitted, the presented matter is found to be basic.
(3)Thus, on considering the memo of the appeal of the petitioner submitted and the matters in the order with which the petitioner expresses dissatisfaction, and considering the details submitted by the petitioner, it is found that if any agreement is entered by the affected parties on the part of the petitioner the same has been presented with the rejoinders to the effect “appeal is being withdrawn”.In that reference, it is found to have submitted the copies of the Reconciliation of Agreement. But it is found that the petitioner has not submitted any evidences, supportive facts or details that may be legally admissible in view of the reason for the appeal. Further, no representation or supportive details are submitted to the effect that any decision can be issued from here, or it should be done, in view of the Reconciliation Agreement between the affected parties or any provision available to that effect.In this reference, the judgment of the honorable Gujarat High Court as mentioned in the G. R. L. 42 between Lallubhai Girdharilal Parikh versus Acharya Shri Vrajbhushanlalji Balkrishnalalji (1967) that states, “Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the relevant provision there under and also objects of the Act, the Assistant or Deputy Charity commissioner or the Charity Commissioner in appeal under Section 70, has no power or jurisdiction to pass an order in accordance with the agreement between the parties”.Since the matter of the judgment is in view, no option is available in the present conditions. Hence, on the ground of the matters submitted the said appeal needs to be granted reasonable justice. In this condition, the appeal made by the petitioner does not establish its claim on the ground of the submitted details and proofs. Hence, in this matter the present appeal is found to be fit in all respects for rejection in the present conditions. Further, since the present suit was carried on from the year 2006 to the year 2009 and since the petitioner has not accomplished the matters of proof as per the set procedure and in acceptable manner and it is not proved that in the matter of the agreement no acceptable procedure has been followed the said appeal and the expenses incurred thereon are found fit for rejection in the present condition. It means that all the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) collectively from his/her personal property as it comes to each one’s share within 30 days to the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara and the order to that effect would be appropriate.Besides it, whatever expense is incurred from the trust funds in view of the present suit, the total amount to that effect has to be collected deposited back to the trust funds by the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed as it falls to each one’s share within 30 days from the date of this notice and the order to that effect would be appropriate.Further, it would be appropriate to carry on the functioning of the organization as per the provisions made in the interest of the organization and general public until an order is not issued by a competent authority.
(4)It is argued by the petitioner that as per the provision of the Society Registration 1860 the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has no powers or authority. But the argument cannot be accepted. Because the Assistant Charity Commissioner receives authority in the region under him as per the provision of the delegation of powers under the Item 8 of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950.Further, the point of ignoring the provisions of the Society Registration Act 1860 and that about the wrong interpretation of the Item 22 of the local law, The Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 too cannot be accepted in the present conditions.The reason is that the S. R. Act 1860 has been incorporated in the Item 2 (13) of The Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and its definition has been expanded and made comprehensive.And the same has been basically discussed in the detailed order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner.Hence, those matters cannot not accepted in the present conditions.
(5). Thus, in an overall view, since the matter of the present appeal submitted to the Court is not duly established by the petitioner with relevant evidences and since the matter of the appeal is not established on the basis of the agreement, considering the matters submitted in view of the said appeal and in the interest of justified decision the final order has been issuedas under:
THE FINAL ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to pay from his/her personal properties the sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each that falls to each one’s shareto the P. T. A. Funds at the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara within 30 days.
All the acting trustees working at the time when the appeal was filed will have to redeposit in to the trust funds from their personal property the amount as it falls to each one’s share towards all collective expenses that have been incurred from the trust funds towards the legal suit within 30 days.
It has been informed that until orders are issued from the competent authority the work has to be carried out in the interest of the organization and in the public interest following the provisions mentioned in the document framed at the time of the foundation of the organization.
The order has to be conveyed to all concerned respondents of the suit and its copy will have to be sent to the Charity Commissioner, GujaratState and the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara.The original record has to be sent back.
I write this in response to many inquiries that I have received regarding the current status of the Indian Association for Canadian Studies that all of us have created, nurtured and developed from its inception in 1985 till the last Annual General Body meeting held at Jammu University in February 2007 when all its activities came to a halt.
1. Court Order: As some of you know that the then Presidents/Secretaries of IACS had filed ‘Change Reports’ in the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara in 1997 and 2002 asking for change in the names of the Trustees and also the New Constitution accepted in 1995 in Pune. The Charity Commissioner vide its Order Number – 51 dated 22/03/2006 rejected all the change reports and passed the following Order: “This Change Report is rejected. Action should be taken to record this Order on the PTR and the concerned parties be informed about his Order” (for full version please visit our blog at: http://iacsvadodara.blogspot.com). This Order thus has the following implications: • No activities of IACS including the new constitution, the elections, the office-bearers, and members of the Executive Committee are legal. • The Trustees of IACS are the nine founding trustees. • Only the initial trustees from Baroda can operate the academic, administrative, financial and other activities IACS. • There already exists a bank account of the initial body and all money in whichever account of the IACS needs to be deposited and transferred there.
2. Consequences of the Order: a) Consequently, a copy of the Order was sent to the then President, who did not conduct elections for the new EC at Jammu Conference in February 2007 and a Reconciliation Committeewas constituted by the General Body. b) Subsequently, the Funding Agency in Canada has diverted the disbursement of their funds through other agencies and not through the prorogued IACS-EC. Some of your projects might have benefited from this.
3. Appeal to Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara: An Appeal No. 38/2006 was filed against the above Order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner by President IACS in the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara in June 2006. As the authorized Trustee, IACS, I filed my reply in August 2006. It is still pending before the learned judge for a hearing.
4. Reconciliation Committee: In order to find a way out of this situation created by the Appeal, the General Body of the IACS constituted a Reconciliation Committee at the Annual General Body Meeting held during the Annual Conference at Jammu University in February 2007. The members of the Committee are: Dr. R. K. Dhawan, Dr. Vimal Dhawan, Professor U. M. Nanavati and Dr. D. K. Pabby (convenor). This committee prepared a Reconciliation Agreement between the IACS and the Trustees. The Committee then approached me for an out of court settlement of the matter. Though there were major concerns from some members about the mismanagement of funds and other issues related to non deposit of the Life Membership Fees in the corpus fund, I went out of the way to accept the recommendations of the Reconciliation Committee so as to put IACS on track and signed the Reconciliation Agreement, already signed by Dr. R. K. Dhawan, on 04 September 2007. I gave a copy to my lawyer to submit it to the Charity Commissioner’s office. However, the EC was reluctant to accept the Agreement.
Following this reluctance from the EC, Canadian High Commission called a couple of meetings in Delhi. In order to resolve this issue finally, a special meeting was called by the Funding Agency on 31 October 2007 in Canadian High Commission in Delhi. This meeting was attended by all the members of the EC, representatives of SICI, representatives of Canadian High Commission and the representatives of the Canadian government in Ottawa, besides me. It was unanimously decided to send the copy of the Agreement to the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner in Vadodara without any further delay. I would like to thank the High Commission, the Funding Agency and all those involved in this effort to solve this issue ‘out of court’.
However, the EC has refused to accept the Agreement and has not submitted the same to the Joint Charity Commissioner as an out of court settlement of the Appeal No. 38/2006 pending before him.
This action raises a basic issue: how can EC adjudicate on the Agreement that has been done following a General Body Resolution passed at AGM held at Jammu University? I may emphasise that this right vests with the GB alone, as it is the bigger body. Moreover, the term of office of the present EC has expired and is therefore defunct. How can a defunct or prorogued EC decide on an issue already settled by the General Body ?
I must bring it to your attention that the facts stated above may be verified from the members of the Reconciliation Committee and all others who attended these meetings. As some of you are aware I have posted all the documents on my blog at: http://iacsvadodara.com . Please visit it for more information.
As a concerned member of IACS, I am sure you do not wish the Association to stay in this state with a defunct/prorogued EC. I shall therefore appreciate a response in support of the Agreement so that we start the process of revitalizing our Association which has helped us in furthering our careers and scholarship in the field of Canadian Studies.
Please respond either by replying to his email or emailing me at: omjuneja@gmail.com . You may talk to me at: (0265) 2793366 (landline) or 91-9898438201 (mobile).
CONTACT ICCS-CIEC International Council for Canadian Studies250 City Centre, Suite 303, Ottawa, Canada K1R 6K7Tel.: (613) 789-7834; Fax: (613) 789-7830; E-mail: gleclair@iccs-ciec.ca
ON THE HOMEFRONT Result of the ICCS Election of At-Large Directors:
The ICCS is pleased to announce that Martin Howard of Ireland was elected for a second term as At-Large Director. He will hold the position of Treasurer. The election for the positions of At-Large Directors was held at the ICCS AGM on May 26. Three candidates (one from Ireland and two from India) vied for two positions. At the AGM, the President of the Nominating Committee, Prof. Cornelius Remie, informed the Board of Directors of the legal predicament faced by the Indian Association for Canadian Studies. This issue was discussed in camera and after due deliberation, the Board decided to allow the two nominations from India. However, it stipulated the requirement that the result of the vote be based on an absolute majority (i.e. 50 percent plus one vote). It also decided that if it did not elect two Directors-at-Large, it would hold an election next year to fill the position(s). The Board then proceeded with the vote. Only, Martin Howard received the required number of votes to be elected. An election for the second at-Large Director will then be held next year. The ICCS congratulates Martin Howard and sincerely thanks all candidates
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.
In his letter dated 6th December 2006 to The Secretary, IACS, New Delhi, Ravichndra P. Chittampalli, M.A., Ph.D. wrote:
"I wish to state that it has become impossible for me to continue to hold the august position of the President of Indian Association for Canadian Studies...I am forthwith resigning from the post of President, Indian Association for Candian Studies."
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
