Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc v Mani [2006] NSWSC 657

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc v Mani [2006] NSWSC 657

HEARING DATE(S) : 11/05/06 JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Young CJ in Eq

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 05/11/2006

DECISION : The Annual General Meeting of 3 July 2005 was validly convened and held, and the persons elected were properly elected. Defendants to pay plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

CATCHWORDS : ASSOCIATIONS [5]- Whether Annual General Meeting valid- Whether AGM appointed a properly constituted governing body- Notice of the meeting given by person other than elected secretary- Incomplete financial accounts- Meeting held to be valid.

LEGISLATION CITED : Associations Incorporation Act 1984

Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of New South Wales Incorporated (P) PARTIES : Satya Mani (D1) Rajendra Kumar Harakh (D2)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1338/06

COUNSEL : D A Smallbone (P) H Prakash (S) (D)

SOLICITORS : Adams & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd (P) Hemant Prakash & Associates (D)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Thursday 11 May 2006

1338/06 – SHREE SANATAN DHARM SABHA OF NEW SOUTH WALES INCORPORATED v MANI JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The present dispute is over who is entitled to be on the governing body of the plaintiff which is a religious and cultural association whose aim is to propagate the Hindu religion. The plaintiff is incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1984 and has been called the Sabha in evidence and I will adopt that title. 2 The present proceedings were commenced by summons, Sabha being the plaintiff, on 7 February 2006 because the first defendant, Mr Satya Mani, who claimed to be the secretary of the Sabha, and Mr Rajendra Harakh, who claimed to be the president, were in the process of convening a general meeting for February 2006. The matter came before his Honour Brereton J who granted an interlocutory injunction on 10 February 2006 [see NSWSC 96]. 3 The matter comes on today before me by way of final hearing. It has to be noted that although a number of people would appear to be affected directly by this decision, there are only three parties to the litigation: the Sabha and the two officers whom I have named. That fact causes me some problems because the court does not affect people's rights or obligations unless they have had a chance to be heard, but that is nullified in this case by the fact that it is fairly clear that the persons interested in the Sabha have a fair knowledge of what is going on in their association and that the two rival contentions have been fairly represented before me. 4 Under the Sabha's constitution the annual general meetings are to be held within a period of six months after the expiration of the Sabha's financial year. At all material years the financial year has ended on 30 June. This provision in the constitution is clearly mandated by s 26 of the Act. An annual general meeting of the Sabha was purportedly held on 3 June 2005. At that meeting Mr Gyan Singh was purportedly elected president and other persons were elected as office holders and committee members. 5 The plaintiff, for whom Mr Smallbone of counsel appears, seeks a declaration that those people on the 2005 committee were validly elected. The opposing group is represented by Mr Prakash, solicitor, who represents those defendants I have already named and others, many of whom were members of the committee elected in 2004. 6 The rival contentions appear to be: