- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34635 WP No. 25051 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25051 OF 2025 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: 1. NANDINI LAYOUT CLUB MAITRI SOUDHA, CIRCULAR ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, TS BENGALURU-560 096. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BABU MOILI M.C. 2. SRI. DINESH KUMAR K.S PRESIDENT, NANDINI LAYOUT CLUB, MAITRI SOUDHA, CIRCULAR ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096. 3. SRI. BABU MOILI M.C SECRETARY, NANDINI LAYOUT CLUB, MAITRI SOUDHA, CIRCULAR ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34635 WP No. 25051 of 2025 BENGALURU-560 096. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A GUNASEKARAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI GURUCHARAN R HARITE TREASURER, NANDINI LAYOUT CLUB, MAITRI SOUDHA, CIRCULAR ROAD, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 096. 2. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, ZONE-1, OFFICE AT NO.146, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS ROAD, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,8 BENGALURU-560-003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAYANA TARA BG.,ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN PROCEEDING NO.DRB-1/SUM SUM/COMPLAINT/33/2025-26 BEFORE R-2 AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.07.2025 ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34635 WP No. 25051 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The first petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 [for short, 'the Act'], and the other petitioners respectively are its President and Secretary. The first respondent is elected as a Treasurer along with the second and third petitioners. The third petitioner has issued a suspension notice dated 29.05.2025 informing the first respondent that he is kept under suspension1 with immediate effect. The first respondent has filed a complaint with the second respondent, and this complaint is entertained under Section 25 of the Act. 1 This notice does not in clear terms mention that the petitioner’s membership is suspended, and it could be argued that the suspension is as regards the petitioner being the Treasurer of the Society. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34635 WP No. 25051 of 2025 2. The second respondent, by the impugned order dated 10.07.2025, has granted an interim order staying the first respondent's suspension This order has been in force for more than a month now, and it is brought on record that the first respondent has resumed office as the Treasurer of the Society and he has also brought forth to the second respondent's consideration certain acts, which according to this respondent, justifies a detailed enquiry under Section 25 of the Act into the Society's working and financial affairs. 3. Mr. A. Gunasekharan, the learned the learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon Rule 8 of the Karnataka Society's Registration Rules, 1961 [for short, 'the Rules'], submits that the Registrar of the Societies whenever there is a proposal to hold an enquiry under Section 25 of the Act, must cause notice to the Society specifying the date and the time of enquiry with an opportunity to offer explanation, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34635 WP No. 25051 of 2025 but the second respondent has entertained the complaint at the first respondent’s instance without even notice. 4. As against these submissions, Ms. Nayana Tara B.G., the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that the second respondent has complied with the requirement of Rule 8 of the Rules in scheduling the enquiry on 29.08.2025 resulting in notice and opportunity to the respondents. When queried on the second respondent’s jurisdiction to grant an interim order, the learned counsel places on record a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Advocates' Association Bengaluru v. the District Registrar and Registrar of Societies, Bangalore Urban District and Others2 relying upon the following: "xxxxx. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that power to grant an interim order which is ancillary relief is in aid of the main relief. It is 2 (2006) 4 Kant LJ 526 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34635 WP No. 25051 of 2025 no doubt true that under Section 25 of the Act while holding an enquiry there is no specific provision which enables the Registrar to suspend the activities of the association. But however, it is to be noticed that some power regarding calling for general body meeting during the pendency of the enquiry is to be found under sub section 2(c)(i) of the Act. Of course a reading of the other provisions do not give an indication that a special power is conferred under the said provision. But however what is more important and relevant is that if certain material irregularities are brought to the notice of the Registrar and if he is of the opinion that granting of an interim order pending disposal of the enquiry is in furtherance of final order to be passed, I am of the considered view that the power can be traced under Section 25 itself regarding enquiry. xxx This Court must observe that the afore proposition would be in favour of the exercise of jurisdiction to grant an interim order pending disposal of the enquiry under Section 25 of the Act and when it could be in furtherance of the final order in such enquiry. 5. The pending enquiry is to examine the complaints such as that [i] the first respondent is suspended and obstructed from working as the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34635 WP No. 25051 of 2025 Treasurer because he did not join the second and third petitioners in awarding contract to a member without same being placed before the General Body and [ii] the decision to keep the petitioner as a Treasurer under suspension is when the Bye-laws do not expressly contemplate, [iii] the petitioner is kept under suspension without a suitable arrangement for a substitute Treasurer, and [iv] the second and third petitioners have instruments to perpetually withdraw certain amounts. 6. When the second respondent's impugned order is examined from this perspective and the proposition underscored by the Coordinate Bench, this Court is not inclined to opine that there is reason for interference with the stay granted. Further, this Court is of the prima facie view that continuation of the first respondent as the Treasurer of the Society [subject to the outcome in the elections] could aid in ensuring that there is due process in the enquiry. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34635 WP No. 25051 of 2025 The adjunct question is about the first respondent's participation in the elections for which a calendar of events is published when the enquiry is pending. 7. Admittedly, the first respondent has filed nomination, and the calendar of events is also announced for holding elections. Mr. A. Gunasekaran invites the Court's attention to Byelaw 15, which confers jurisdiction in the Managing Committee to keep a member under suspension subject to the procedure that is contemplated. However, this Court must observe that the Managing Committee’s decision to keep the first respondent under suspension is not placed on record, and nothing is also brought on record to show that there was any personal hearing extended to the first respondent even if it could be contended that the first respondent is kept under suspension under this Byelaw. 8. Generally stated, all disputes on suspension of a member of a Society must be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34635 WP No. 25051 of 2025 examined by the competent civil Court under Section 9 of the CPC, and when such remedy is available, this Court could be very circumspect in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, in the circumstances discussed above where the materials are not brought on record to justify even a prima facie view that the Managing Committee has decided on keeping the first respondent under suspension and that he was extended with any due opportunity and with the ensuing elections, this Court is of the view that the first respondent must also participate in the elections but subject to conclusion in a suit that may be filed. The petition stands disposed of while so observing. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr