Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Revisionary Jurisdiction, Appellate Side
Order Date: 15 September 2026
Case Overview
- Petition: Shri Rabi Sankar Sengupta & Ors. (petitioners) vs. Baghbazar Sarbojanin Durgotsav and Exhibition & Ors. (respondents), C.O. 3065 of 2026, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
- Petitioners sought declaration that the elections of the society’s Managing Committee held on 22 June 2025 were null and void, that the decisions of the elected Committee were void, appointment of an Administrator, and an injunction restraining defendants No. 5 and 6 from acting as Secretary and President.
- The trial judge (Xth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta) appointed two senior members of the City Civil Court Bar Association as Special Officers on 24 July 2026 to oversee the AGM of the General Council.
- The Special Officers issued a notice on 6 August 2026 calling the AGM to be held on 30 August 2026 at the society’s registered office. Agenda item 4 concerned election of Honorary General Secretary, Honorary Treasurer and twelve Managing Committee members for 2026‑2027.
- Nominations: 28 members submitted nominations – two for Honorary General Secretary, two for Honorary Treasurer, and 24 for Managing Committee seats.
- Election results declared on 30 August 2026 revealed:
- A tie for Honorary Secretary: 33 votes each for the two candidates.
- A tie for four Managing Committee seats: six candidates each received 32 votes.
- The 6th defendant filed an application on 2 September 2026 under Section 151 CPC requesting that the Chairman be allowed to exercise a casting vote in addition to his own vote for each tied post, invoking Rule 37 of the Society’s Rules and Regulations.
- The trial judge’s order dated 3 September 2026 directed the President (Chairman) to hold a meeting under Rule 37 but did not specify the manner of exercising the casting vote.
- Senior Advocates for the petitioners (Aniruddha Chatterjee) argued that Rule 37 permits only one casting vote in total and that the Chairman, having participated as a member, could not resolve ties in five posts.
- Senior Advocates for the respondents (Sakya Sen) contended that the phrase “Every question” in Rule 37 allows the Chairman to give a casting vote for each question where a tie occurs, and that a meeting on 7 September 2026 had already resolved one post using the Chairman’s casting vote.
Court Reasoning
- The Court examined Rule 53 (eligibility) and Rule 37 (casting vote) of the Society’s Rules.
- It observed that the Chairman had been elected as a member and was not a candidate for any of the tied posts, eliminating any conflict of interest.
- The Court distinguished the earlier Gujarat High Court decision (Balwantrai Bhimbhai Desai vs. Taluka Panchayat, AIR 1979 Guj 220) on the basis that in that case the presiding officer was a candidate for the contested post, which is not the case here.
- The Court interpreted the wording of Rule 37: “in case of equality of votes the chairman shall have a casting vote in addition to the vote to which he may be entitled as a member.”
- It concluded that the Chairman is entitled to one ordinary vote for each post and, where a tie occurs, an additional casting vote for that specific post.
- Applying this interpretation to the present facts, the Court held that the Chairman may exercise a casting vote for each of the five tied posts (one for Honorary Secretary and one for each of the four Managing Committee seats).
- The Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that the Chairman could give only a single casting vote overall.
Final Outcome
- The Court affirmed that Rule 37 can be invoked to resolve stalemates in more than one post.
- The petition (C.O. 3065/2026) is dismissed without any order as to costs.
- The trial judge’s direction to the President to hold a meeting under Rule 37 stands affirmed.
- Parties may obtain urgent photostat certified copies upon compliance with formalities.
Topics: Society Election, Judicial Interpretation of Rules