Delhi Jan Sudhar Samiti vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce And ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1218 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition challenges the stoppage of the operation of the bank account of the petitioner Society by the respondent No.1-Bank by its Memo dated 6.10.2000 at the behest of respondent No.3 who claims to be the rival office bearer of the same Society.

2. By this miscellaneous application, the petitioner seeks an adinterim ex-parte injunction, allowing it to operate its Current Account No.2586 with the respondents 1 & 2 till the disposal of the writ petition.

3. The petitioner has demonstrated that it had communicated the names of the newly elected office bearers and the change of names consequent to the election to the Registrar of Societies which changes were noted by the Registrar. Similarly the names of the newly elected signatories were also communicated to the respondent No.1-Bank. The respondent No.3 which claims to be the real society on the other hand contended that Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta being the founder President continued to be the President and Shri Subhash Chander Roongta was substituted as Secretary of the Society by Shri Sharma. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Bank while acknowledging the receipt of the communication of the new signatories by the petitioner also stated that no such communication for change of signatories occasioned by substitution of Shri Roongta by Shri Sharma was received by its from respondent No.3. He further states that the accounts had been operated by the petitioner for about a couple of months before they were frozen by the order impugned int this writ petition issued at the behest of the respondent No.3 which claimed to be the real Society. Considering the overall circumstances, I am of the view that the balance of convenience is in favor of the petitioner as it had already operated the accounts for about 2 months prior to the stoppage of operation of the bank account. Similarly contemporaneous communication of the new office bearers to the Registrar and the respondent No.1-Bank demonstrates the prima facie case in favor of the petitioner. No viable explanation was offered by the respondent No.3 for not communicating the substitution of name of Shri Sharma the present Secretary to the Bank in place of the then Secretary and the President of the present petitioner, Shri Rungta.

4. In view of the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant/petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to operate its current account no.2586 with the respondents 1 & 2 till the disposal of the writ petition. It is further directed that the petitioner shall maintain and file a statement of yearly accounts in this Court on affidavit starting from 1st April, 2002 during the pendency of the writ petition.

5. The miscellaneous application accordingly stands disposed of.