VINOD KUMAR Vs. ALL INDIA BLIND RELIEF SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this suit the plaintiff is primarily challenging his removal as the President of defendant no.1 Society(to be referred as 'the Society' hereinafter), which position he was admittedly holding since 15 th November, 2009, and induction of defendant no.3 in the Governing Body of the Society in his place as the President w.e.f. 28th March, 2011 even though his tenure was for a period of five years expiring in November,2014. The plaintiff also challenged the removal of defendant no.2 as the General Secretary of the Society alongwith him and appointment of defendant no.4 in his place.

(2.) THE plaintiff had felt aggrieved by the said decision of the Society taken on 16th March, 2011 and so he filed the present suit and made the following prayers in the plaint:

(3.) IT is admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff was the President of the Society and defendant no. 2 was its General Secretary and their tenure was for a period of 5 years which also admittedly has not expired so far. The plaintiff's case is that he had been acting as the President ever since November, 2009. However, when on 7th May, 2011 he went to the Society's bank for collecting bank statement he was informed by the bank Manager that the same could not be supplied to him as he was no longer the President of the Society since the Society had appointed someone else as the President w.e.f. 28th March,2011 pursuant to some resolution passed on 16th March, 2011 after accepting his resignation and also that even the General Secretary, defendant no. 3 Shri Naresh Kumar had also been replaced by defendant no. 4 Shri Laxman Kumar Sagar since he had also resigned. The plaintiff's main case in the plaint as well as at the time of hearing was that neither he nor Shri Naresh Kumar had resigned on 16th March, 2011 and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Governing Body of the Society to appoint defendant no. 2 as the President and defendant no. 4 as the General Secretary who in any case was not even a member of the Society on 16 th March,12011. The plaintiff alleges in the plaint that the so called resolution of the Governing Body of the Society passed on 16th March,2011 when his resignation and that of defendant no.2 were allegedly tendered and accepted is illegal and without any authority. In fact, he has also pleaded, no such resolution was passed on that date nor the resignation of the plaintiff was in the agenda of the meeting of that date.