Bombay High Court
Sunil Maruti Parab vs Vidyadhar Dalvi on 17 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:9540
35 SA-397-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 397 OF 2020
All India Backward & Minorities Communities
Employees Federation ...Appellant
Versus
Waman Meshram and Another ...Respondents
------------
Mr. Gautam A. Tambe for Appellants.
Mr. Vikas Shivaskar for Respondents.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : 17th November, 2025.
P. C. :
1. The present Appeal is at the instance of original Plaintiff against
the concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and First Appellate Court.
2. Regular Civil Suit No. 1183 of 2003 was instituted by the Plaintiff
for recovery of sum of Rs. 14,24,489/-. The Plaintiff came with the case
that Defendant No. 1 was President of the Plaintiff-Federation who
had resigned on 1st June, 2003 and thereafter, one Shri B. D. Borkar was
appointed as President in the meeting of the Executive Committee
held on 14th June, 2003 and 15th June, 2003. It was stated that after his
resignation, the Defendants had withdrawn Rs. 14,24,489/- from the
bank accounts, which money was collected from members and through
Sairaj 1 of 5
35 SA-397-2020.doc
donations. It was stated that the amount was withdrawn by Defendant
No. 2 and transferred in the account of Defendant No. 1 without
permission of the Central Executive Committee. The relief which was
sought was money decree against Defendants for the amount of Rs.
14,24,489/-.
3. The suit came to be resisted by Defendants denying that B.D.
Borkar was President of the Plaintiff-Federation and stating that
Defendant No. 1 continues to hold the office as President of the
Federation. The so-called resignation dated 1 st June, 2003 was denied
as not being in conformity with the rules and regulations of the
Federation and therefore, there was no unauthorized transfer of funds
by Defendant No. 2 in the account of Defendant No. 1. It was further
submitted that transfer of the amount was in the account of two
publications of which Defendant No. 1 is editor as well as the owner
and it was being operated solely by Defendant No. 1.
4. The Trial Court by judgment dated 17 th August, 2012 dismissed
the suit after appreciating the evidence on record. The Trial Court
noted that Plaintiff's witness No. 2 has admitted that disputed amount
is sent in the account of the publications. He has further admitted that
amount is not credited in the account of Defendant No. 1. The Trial
Court noted that there is documentary evidence on record which
makes it clear that the amount was credited in the account of
Sairaj 2 of 5
35 SA-397-2020.doc
publications which Defendant No. 1 was running and sustaining the
expenditure and therefore, there is no illegality.
5. The First Appellate Court by the judgment dated 6 th December,
2018 reappreciated the evidence on record. The First Appellate Court
considered the evidence of Plaintiff's witnesses who admitted that as
per rules and regulations of the Plaintiff-Society, there is no post of
Chairman and that the extract at Exhibit-46 dated 11 th November, 2003
which appears to be the minutes of the meeting is not signed by the
President of the Society and that no original minutes book/notice
book/Agenda Book have been produced to establish that the meeting
was called by authorized signatory. The first Appellate Court further
noted that amount of Rs. 14,24,489/- has been transferred not into the
account of Defendant No. 1, but in the account of publications which
publications have been asked to be handed over to the Plaintiff-
Federation and therefore, there is no illegal transfer of funds. The First
Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and
dismissed the Appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for Appellant would submit that the
Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have failed to take into
consideration the necessary evidence leading to perversity of the
finding. He would further submit that subsequent to the proceedings,
the Defendant No. 1 has withdrawn the amount. He would further
Sairaj 3 of 5
35 SA-397-2020.doc
submit that first Appellate Court failed to take into consideration that
the demand notice dated 12th November, 2003 has not been responded
by Defendants. He submits that as the findings are based on no
evidence, the findings suffers from perversity giving rise to substantial
question of law.
7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
8. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have rendered
concurrent findings to hold that Defendant No. 1 has not withdrawn
the said amount illegally from the account of Plaintiff-Society but that
there is a transfer of the said amount into the account of the
publications of which Defendant No. 1 was the editor. There is no
evidence produced on record to demonstrate any meeting being called
for accepting purported resignation of Defendant No. 1 as there are no
original minutes book/notice book/Agenda book produced to
substantiate its case of Defendant No. 1's resignation being accepted
in the said meeting leaving Defendant No. 1 with no right to continue
with the publications. In the absence of any material placed on record,
the First Appellate Court has rightly come to a finding that there is no
resignation of Defendant No. 1, which was accepted by the Plaintiff by
passing any resolution.
9. Apart from above, the Plaintiff has come with a case of recovery
of money alleged to have been unauthorizedly withdrawn by the
Sairaj 4 of 5
35 SA-397-2020.doc
Defendants. The evidence on record demonstrates admission on part
of the Plaintiffs that the amount has not been transferred in the
personal account of Defendant No. 1 but has been transferred in the
accounts of the publications which was being run by Defendant No. 1.
There is no illegality which is demonstrated from the evidence as
regards the transfer in the accounts of these publications which
according to Plaintiff themselves were being run by the Plaintiff's
organization in the name of Defendant No. 1. It is sought to be
contended by learned counsel appearing for Appellant that
subsequently, Defendant No. 1 has withdrawn the money, however,
these are subsequent developments which were not part of the
proceedings before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and
cannot be taken into consideration in the Second Appeal proceedings.
Though, the contention was that there was no response to the demand
notice, the same in itself is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that
the Plaintiff has established the illegal and unauthorized withdrawal of
sum of Rs. 14,24,489/- by Defendant No. 1 in his personal account.
10. There is no perversity which is demonstrated in the concurrent
findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, no
substantial question of law arises in the present case. Second Appeal
stands dismissed.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 5 of 5
