//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 1209
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-10-01
Brereton J
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Chandra v Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc [2026] NSWSC 1209
Hearing dates: 2 – 6, 10 – 12 February, 4 March 2026
Date of orders: 1 October 2026
Decision date: 01 October 2026
Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List
Before: Brereton J
Decision: (1) Declare that Mr Nilesh Kishore and Mr Rajnesh Kant Sharma are members of the Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc (the Association).
(2) Declare that the expulsion of Mr Ganeshwar Prasad Maharaj from membership of the Association at the annual general meeting held on 17 March 2024 is invalid.
(3) Declare that the expulsion from membership of the Association and banning of Mr Jitendra Nair at the annual general meeting held on 17 March 2024 is invalid.
(4) Otherwise dismiss the second amended summons.
(5) If the parties cannot agree orders to be made about costs they should advise my Associate of that fact by 4pm on 16 October 2026 and directions will be made to deal with the determination of costs.
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords: ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – incorporated associations – where disputes as to membership and disciplinary action against members within incorporated association – whether various plaintiffs were validly removed from membership register –whether expulsion and suspension of members in disciplinary proceedings complied with association constitution – whether disciplinary decisions made for improper purpose contrary to association constitution – where allegation that association affairs conducted for benefit of president – whether grounds established for winding up incorporated association under ss 63(1)(f) and 63(1)(i) of the Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW) – whether receiver and manager should be appointed – where grounds not established for winding up or appointment of receiver and manager – declarations granted in respect of membership status and invalid expulsions – balance of claims dismissed
Legislation Cited: Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Ahmed v Chowdhury [2012] NSWSC 1452
Banque Commercial SA En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Limited (1990) 169 CLR 279
The Estate of Lorenzo Antonio Pastrello [2024] NSWSC 734
United Muslims New South Wales Inc v Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc (No 2); Islamic Council of Victoria Inc v Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc [2022] NSWSC 868
Texts Cited: Dal Pont, G E, Law of Associations (2nd ed, 2026)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Yogeshwar Chandra (first plaintiff)
Abhi Manu (second plaintiff)
Jitendra Nair (third plaintiff)
Nilesh Kishore (fourth plaintiff)
Rajnesh Kant Sharma (fifth plaintiff)
Ganeshwar Prasad Maharaj (sixth plaintiff)
Rama Devi Gilbert (seventh plaintiff)
Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc (first defendant)
Ajay Singh (second defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
J Cohen (plaintiffs)
M Zammit (defendants)
Solicitors:
Hawkesbury Legal Centre (plaintiffs)
Fifty Fifth Lawyers (defendants)
File Number(s): 2025/237049
Publication restriction: N.A.
These proceedings concern a series of disputes in connection with the membership and management of the first defendant, Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc, which is a Hindu religious incorporated association (the Association). The plaintiffs are individuals who have variously been expelled, banned or not recognised as members of the Association. The second defendant is Mr Ajay Singh. He is the current President of the Association.
By their second amended summons the plaintiffs seek declarations and orders, including orders that the Association be wound up pursuant to sections 63(1)(f) and 63(1)(i) of the Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW) or that a receiver and manager be appointed. They also seek ancillary orders, including orders reinstating the plaintiffs as members of the Association.
The plaintiffs filed and rely on a points of claim. It in large part addresses a series of complaints relevant to each specific plaintiff, rather than matters concerning the general membership of the Association. There is some overlap between the matters arising in respect of particular plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contend, in effect, that the manner in which they have been treated reflects an endemic problem within the Association.
The evidence and argument from the plaintiffs canvassed a considerable array of factual matters. In some instances, it was not easy to understand with precision how those matters related to the contentions advanced by the points of claim or how they were properly connected to the relief claimed. The defendants complained that many of the submissions advanced for the plaintiffs were not pleaded. They also complained that the plaintiffs failed to connect the evidence at the hearing with the matters advanced in the points of claim.
At times, it appeared that the plaintiffs were asking the Court to undertake a form of merits review of decisions made by the Association through its various organs or undertake a de novo hearing about the allegations. That is not the role of the Court and is not what was advanced by the points of claim. As Professor Dal Pont explains in Law of Associations (2nd ed, 2026) at [7.51]-[7.53], the merits of a particular action or decision are ordinarily left to the Association. The Court may act to enforce compliance with an Association’s constitution, including by addressing procedural defects.
In a disciplinary context, compliance with procedure is important. In United Muslims New South Wales Inc v Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc (No 2); Islamic Council of Victoria Inc v Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc [2022] NSWSC 868, Kirk JA observed:
[130] Similarly, in Burning Palms at [74] Campbell J stated that a “power to expel from an incorporated club is one where the procedures laid down by the club’s constituent documents must be strictly complied with, if the expulsion is to be valid”. And in MCNSW v AFIC 2009 at [32] Bergin CJ in Eq said that “there should be strict compliance with procedural requirements where there is a prospect of expulsion. Such a serious consequence requires procedural regularity”.
[131] In this legal context, I do not accept that in the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant relief a “near enough is good enough” approach should be adopted. Such an approach would undermine the requirement for strict compliance expressed so forcefully in previous cases.
I have decided the case by reference to the matters advanced by the points of claim and the points of defence. I address factual matters in so far as they are properly engaged by those documents and raise questions about whether steps concerning the membership of the plaintiffs have been made in conformity with the requirements of the Association’s constitution.
I have not conducted a merits review of the decisions under attack. However, the substance of the plaintiffs’ complaints do not, generally speaking, raise issues about technical procedural requirements. Although there are variations, broadly speaking the plaintiffs complain that decisions were made:
(a) at the behest of Mr Singh (when the decisions were not his to make); (b) not for the reasons that were notified to the respective plaintiffs; and (c) for an improper purpose, being to remove opposition to Mr Singh and to intimidate potential opposition to him.
As I have said, this case involves a broad factual sweep. Before dealing with specifics, a broad summary of some background matters should assist to provide some context.
The Association was registered as an incorporated association in 1988. It operates as a registered charity and owns property at Austral, in Sydney. A Hindu temple is located on that land. The Temple is open to the public for daily prayers and is a place where the Association conducts events and religious functions.
On 13 December 2009, the Association adopted a constitution (the 2009 Constitution). Although there was at one time an issue in these proceedings about the operative constitution, it was agreed that the relevant matters in this case arise to be considered by reference to the 2009 Constitution. Although not signed, attached to the 2009 Constitution, and tendered as part of the Constitution, are the “SSDS Meeting By-Laws 2007” dated 18 December 2007 and the “Code of Conduct” dated 26 February 2009.
Mr Singh was elected President of the Association at the annual general meeting held on 18 October 2020.
The thrust of the plaintiffs’ overall case is that Mr Singh has taken autocratic control over the Association and has systematically taken deliberate and wrongful steps to remove from the Association any persons who he perceives to pose any kind of threat to his position as President of the Association. The 7 plaintiffs claim to be victims of Mr Singh’s unlawful purge. Some of the claims of some plaintiffs are connected, others are discrete.
The case advanced by the Association and Mr Singh, at a general level, is that the Association has been managed properly and effectively under Mr Singh’s leadership, and that the various disciplinary decision were made properly in accordance with the Constitution.
With that background, I turn to the particular allegations made by the plaintiffs. I will generally deal with the underlying matters as they arose chronologically.
The specific allegations concerning the fourth plaintiff (Mr Nilesh Kishore) and the fifth plaintiff (Mr Rajnesh Sharma) are similar and can be addressed together. They are addressed that way in the points of claim.
Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma both gave evidence and were cross-examined. They were both articulate and careful. I accept that they were seeking to give complete and truthful evidence. That is not to say that on all matters their evidence can be accepted without qualification. They brought with them the natural human bias and indignation that commonly arises when a person perceives that there has been an attack on their integrity.
As at 15 November 2021, Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were, at least purportedly, members of the Association’s Management Committee. On that day they attended a Management Committee meeting. They, alongside Ms Nirbha Ram (the Association’s General Secretary) and her husband, Mr Tej Ram, were directed by Mr Singh and Mr Kumar to leave the meeting. The basis of that direction was not specified to those individuals at the time of being directed to leave the meeting.
The basis for removing Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma from the 15 November 2021 meeting was communicated to both individuals by letters dated 24 November 2021. Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were alleged to have communicated with Ms Ram to make amendments to draft minutes concerning a meeting held on 24 October 2021 after they had been approved by Mr Singh. They were notified that upon an internal investigation, it was discovered that:
1. your membership was not approved by the Management Committee pursuant to Clause 5 of the Constitution of the Sabha;
2. your ordinary annual membership was not paid on the deadline date of 30 June 2020 to entitle you to vote or be nominated for elections; and
3. subsequently your appointment as a Management Committee member of the Sabha on 18 October 2020 was void ab initio.
The notices stated that they were not eligible members of the Association and that their names would be removed from the register of members. The notices further stated that given that they were not members, no further action would be taken about the alleged breaches.
a. without any procedural fairness being afforded to the Fourth or Fifth Plaintiffs;
b. not on a genuine basis; and
c. for improper purposes, being to remove opposition to the Second Defendant and to intimidate any potential opposition to the Second Defendant.
I accept that the Court can and should consider whether or not Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were members of the Association as at 24 November 2021. This is not merely a matter of internal management of the Association. Membership gives rise to a legal relationship between its members in accordance with the Association’s constitution, and gives standing to the member to take curial steps that he or she would not otherwise enjoy: see Ahmed v Chowdhury [2012] NSWSC 1452 at [62], [65] (Lindsay J); Associations Incorporation Act, s 26.
Clause 5 of the 2009 Constitution provides:
5. NOMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP
A person wishing to be a member shall complete an application form as specified in Appendix 1 to this Constitution and shall submit the requisite fee, specified for that category of membership to the General Secretary or Treasurer or direct debit.
The membership form together with the requisite fee shall be presented to the next meeting of the Management Committee, for approval. The Management Committee shall make all necessary inquiries about the applicant, before proceeding to approve the application. The acceptance of the application shall be decided by majority vote and the decision of the Management Committee shall be final, and, a subsequent application shall not be entertained unless 6 months has elapsed from the date of the decision to refuse membership. If the application is rejected [then] the membership fee must be returned to the applicant without any deductions, mere issue of a receipt shall never be construed as acceptance of membership.
Upon approval of the application, the Treasurer or/and General Secretary shall enter the approval of the member into the membership register within 7 days of the acceptance.
A person wishing to join the category of family membership, shall become such a member by Paying $50 per month consecutively for 3 months, in such a case the members details, shall be included in a special register with full details of all members of the household.
The notices dated 24 November 2021 stated that the membership of Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma was not approved by the Management Committee pursuant to clause 5 of the Constitution. That contention was maintained in a letter dated 5 May 2022 addressed to a lawyer then acting for Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma. The letter stated that Mr Kishore’s and Mr Sharma’s approval for membership on 23 July 2020 was invalid because such approval was conferred by the Executive Committee, and not the Management Committee as required by cl 5 of the Constitution. The defendants maintained that contention at trial.
The evidence establishes that Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were members of the Association.
The minutes of an Executive Committee meeting held on 23 July 2020 record the names of approximately 40 people who are identified as “new members” who had been “background checked and approved”. Among the “new members” were Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma. There is evidence that those minutes were adopted at a meeting of the Management Committee on 2 August 2020. By adopting the minutes of the Executive Committee, the Management Committee is to be taken as having approved the applications for membership of Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma.
There is evidence that Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma both made payments of the fee required to be paid to become a member of the Association. By email dated 25 September 2020, they were informed by Mr Parjeet Singh (then the General Secretary of the Association) that their membership was confirmed.
The defendants contend that the application forms for membership submitted by Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were not signed by a proposer or seconder, with the consequence that they were not valid. There is no direct evidence that their application forms were signed by a proposer or seconder. Neither of them saw their applications so signed. However, both gave evidence that it was common in their experience for application forms to be signed by a person applying to become a member and for someone on the Management Committee to arrange for two other persons to sign as proposer and seconder at a subsequent time. It is probable that the application forms of Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were signed by a proposer and seconder in accordance with this practice. Apart from the fact of the practice, the inference is open because their applications were accepted by the Association.
The defendants contend that there is no evidence that Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were included in the register of members. I do not accept that contention. It is true that there was no register of members in evidence. Mr Singh’s evidence was that the current register is a rolling register and only records current members, and includes no record of previous members. There was some evidence that the records of the Association from the time before Mr Singh’s presidency are seriously deficient because the past President, Mr Anil Singh, kept and did not return those records upon his departure. Nevertheless, it is surprising that the Association apparently has no register that identifies the identity of persons who were once members but have ceased to be members, by reason of resignation or anything else. It would seem to be a prudent thing to maintain. However, the notices dated 24 November 2021 state that Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma’s names would be removed from the register of members. That is evidence that their names were on the register of members as at that date. I infer that their names were subsequently removed.
I conclude that as at 24 November 2021, Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were members of the Association. The notices of 24 November 2021 were wrong to state otherwise. No valid steps had been taken in accordance with the Constitution to expel them. Their names should not have been removed from the register of members. Their names should be restored to the register.
There was evidence about the alleged breach associated with the alteration of the draft minutes relating to the Management Committee meeting held on 24 October 2021. The issue concerned the introduction of material after Mr Singh had approved a draft that was perceived by Mr Singh as wrong and prejudicial. There were strongly held but divergent views on the propriety of what was done. The allegations were not the basis of any final disciplinary action against Mr Kishore or Mr Sharma and I do not need to address the matters in any detail, save to note that I am not prepared to conclude that the allegations were merely a pretext to enable Mr Singh to exclude Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma from the membership of the Association and the Management Committee. The allegations may have been an overreach, but they never came before a Disciplinary (or Executive) Committee or the Management Committee for consideration.
At the 2022 annual general meeting of the Association, Mr Singh advised members that Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were not members of the Association and that they had threatened to sue the Association. There was a motion that neither be allowed to be made a member of the Association without 75% of members approving, on the grounds that they had threated to take the Association to Court. Putting aside the fact that Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were within their rights to threaten legal action, the motion was defective and of no effect because it proceeded on the incorrect premise that Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma were not members of the Association at the time.
The plaintiffs make allegations about improper conduct in connection with the 18 December 2022 annual general meeting. The alleged misconduct includes matters pertaining to Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma.
The third plaintiff, Mr Jitendra Nair, gave evidence that just prior to the election conducted at the annual general meeting on 18 December 2022, he and some other members of the Management Committee were approached by Mr Singh, who asked for help in winning the election. Mr Nair’s evidence is that Mr Singh asked them to increase member numbers by adding families, friends and his supporters as members.
Mr Nair’s evidence was that afterwards he met with Mr Lahu Prasad, Mr Vinay Singh (then the Treasurer) and Mr Neel Prasad at Mr Nair’s home. The thrust of his evidence was that they proceeded to complete membership forms for about 60 new members, with a view to securing election success for Mr Singh at the forthcoming election. His evidence was that Mr Singh was not at the meeting but was in contact by telephone and knew what was happening. Mr Nair’s evidence was that he saw that Mr Vinay Singh took 4 forms that had been completed in the names of Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma, together with their wives, and tore them in half, saying that “they are a problem for [Mr Singh], they need to go”.
As a general matter, I am not prepared to rely on Mr Nair’s evidence about what happened at the meeting at his home. His evidence was not consistent and his recollection was exposed to be unreliable. He accepted that he could not recall matters that he had addressed in his affidavit and parts of his oral evidence differed from his affidavit evidence. I do not conclude that Mr Nair gave deliberately false evidence, but I am satisfied that the passage of time and his antipathy towards Mr Singh have resulted in evidence that cannot be relied upon as accurate.
Mr Singh denied that he was involved in or aware of the meeting that was the subject of Mr Nair’s evidence. I accept the denial. The plaintiffs submitted that Mr Singh was not a witness of credit. They advanced examples of evidence from Mr Singh that supported that conclusion. None of the examples led me to conclude that Mr Singh was giving deliberately untrue or evasive evidence.
The first example proffered by the plaintiffs concerned Mr Singh’s “insistence that Redline Legal was the legal officer of the [Association] despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including the fact that he was sworn in as an office bearer”. It was put to Mr Singh on a number of occasions that he had been the legal advisor to the Association. Mr Singh maintained that the Association had retained, at various times up until 2018, the firm known as Redline Legal and that he was a lawyer at the firm who had taken carriage of the work. That evidence was challenged, including because the minutes of the annual general meeting of 28 January 2018 recorded, under the heading “Swearing in Ceremony” the “Legal Advisor” to be “Ajay Singh”. That may reflect the appointment of Mr Singh as the Legal Officer, contemplated by clause 15 of the Constitution. Mr Singh’s evidence was that he did not understand the difference between a legal adviser and a legal officer. None of this impressed me as a basis for attacking Mr Singh’s credit. It is unremarkable that Mr Singh would consider that legal advice provided by him came about from a retainer with the firm for whom he worked, rather than directly from him under a client/lawyer relationship between the Association and him in his personal capacity.
None of the other examples rise any higher. There were no instances where the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate that Mr Singh’s evidence was contradicted by contrary incontrovertible evidence or where his evidence was inherently implausible. I do not accept any suggestion that Mr Singh gave deliberately false evidence and I accept that his evidence is generally reliable. I recognise that his perception and recollection of events may have been shaped by his perspective as an interested participant in the underlying events, with the consequence that his evidence of those events should be treated with some caution. The same is true of nearly all of the witnesses. There was evidence in the case about various confrontations. Nearly all witnesses who participated in those confrontations placed themselves as a righteous victim or hero and the opposition as a discreditable villain. All accounts must be discounted on this basis.
I do not consider that Mr Nair’s evidence bears upon the cases advanced by Mr Kishore or Mr Sharma, either in favour or against. Mr Nair’s evidence relates to a meeting that he says occurred shortly before the annual general meeting held on 18 December 2022. However, Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma completed their application forms in 2019 and I have accepted that they became members in 2020. The contention that they were not members was made in November 2021. Mr Nair did not explain why the membership forms of Mr Kishore or Mr Sharma came up at a meeting conducted in late 2022 with a view to making new members. I am not satisfied I can rely on Mr Nair’s evidence concerning anything done in respect of membership forms signed by Mr Kishore or Mr Sharma.
The plaintiffs allege that there was improper conduct by Mr Singh in connection with the false creation of new members otherwise in accordance with the Constitution, and in connection with the destruction of the membership forms of Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma and their wives. They allege that at the 2022 meeting, some persons who were members were not permitted to enter while persons who were not members were allowed in. None of this was advanced to challenge the validity of any decisions made at the annual general meeting. I understood it was raised in support of the relief sought by way of winding up or the appointment of a receiver.
I am not satisfied that the plaintiffs have established misconduct on the part of Mr Singh in relation to the 2022 annual general meeting. As to the allegations of persons who were purportedly but invalidly made members, if this was to be advanced it would be necessary to have more detailed evidence about the persons who were said to have falsely been made members of the Association and who attended the annual general meeting. One issue that would arise for consideration is that the effect of clause 10(c) of the Constitution appears to be that a member would only be entitled to vote at the 18 December 2022 annual general meeting if he or she had paid his or her membership fee by 30 June 2022. Unless that provision were disregarded, efforts to have make new members to the Association just before the annual general meeting would have been to no avail.
The plaintiffs have not made out a case of improper conduct by Mr Singh concerning the membership of the Association in the lead up to, or at, the 2022 annual general meeting.
Mr Yogeshwar Chandra is the first plaintiff. Up until 20 April 2023, he was a life member of the Association.
Mr Chandra had supported Mr Singh in 2020 when Mr Singh became President of the Association. Mr Chandra was appointed to the Management Committee at about this time.
As I have noted, the 2022 annual general meeting of the Association was conducted on 18 December 2022. There is dispute about some events just before and at the meeting.
A motion was moved at the meeting by Mr Harish Chand that Mr Chandra not be allowed to contest for the position of President. The motion was seconded by the sixth plaintiff, Mr Ganeshwar Maharaj. It is sufficiently clear that the reason that was put to the meeting as to why Mr Chandra should not be permitted to run for President was that he was also the General Secretary of the Shree Sanatan Dharm Pratinidhi Sabha of Australia Inc, which was a different Hindu religious organisation, and it was said that this placed Mr Chandra in position where he had a conflict of interest. Mr Chandra denies there was any conflict.
There is disputed evidence about how the meeting was conducted. Mr Chandra’s evidence was that he was not given a proper opportunity to speak and that the voting was conducted in a confused manner. There was contrary evidence. Mr Ram Singh, a member who was present at the meeting, gave evidence, which was not challenged to any real extent, that the motion was debated for a lengthy period and members were able to put forward their views. His evidence was that there were very few who opposed the motion.
There was also a motion at the 2022 annual general meeting, moved by Mr Chandra and seconded by the second plaintiff (Mr Abhi Manu), that Mr Singh not be permitted to run for the position of President. That motion was dismissed. Mr Singh was elected to be President.
On or about 19 January 2023, the Association issued a notice of breach and disciplinary action to Mr Chandra. The notice made various allegations concerning the conduct of Mr Chandra on 18 December 2022 (the date of the annual general meeting). The allegations included the following:
1. It is alleged that on or around 8.30 a.m. on 18 December 2022, you used offensive language towards security guard and other members who were assisting during the annual general meeting at the Entry. You further abused Mr Sant Kamal Rattan Das and Mr Rajendra Kumaran using foul language. Your behaviour was disruptive and you wilfully acted in manner that has brought the Sabha into disrepute.
2. It was the decision of the Management Committee to keep the Temple premises closed to the non-members on the day of the Annual General Meeting. You attempted to undermine the good governance and management of the Sabha.
- It is alleged that you failed to maintain good spirit and peace at all times and engaged in an activity which undermined the standing and integrity of SSDS to wider community.
The notice alleged that the conduct breached the Association’s Constitution and Code of Conduct.
Mr Chandra was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. He sent an email of 19 February 2023, denying the allegations.
On about 16 March 2023, a disciplinary hearing notice was sent to Mr Chandra, advising that a hearing would be conducted on 4 April 2023.
There was inconsistency as between the Constitution and Meeting By-Laws as to whether the “Executive Committee” or the “Disciplinary Committee” was responsible for conducting a hearing in response to a disciplinary hearing notice. However, the difference in characterisation of the committee is of no significance because in each case the committee was to be comprised by the President, General Secretary and Treasurer.
A Disciplinary Committee comprising Mr Harish Sharma, Mr Narendra Maharaj and Mr Ram Singh was convened on 4 April 2023. None of those individuals held the positions of President, General Secretary or Treasurer of the Association. Nor were they members of the Management Committee. Mr Ram Singh has previously been a member of the Management Committee. His evidence was that he is a member of the Association’s Board of Control.
Mr Ajay Singh’s evidence is that neither he, as President, nor the General Secretary nor the Treasurer sat on the Disciplinary Committee as a matter of procedural fairness, because they also sat on the Management Committee. I do not understand why procedural fairness would require that the members of the Disciplinary Committee should not also be members of the Management Committee. In any event, the Constitution and Meeting By-Laws are clear in identifying the officeholders who are to comprise the Disciplinary Committee. There is no apparent power of delegation. It is reasonable to suppose that the Constitution contemplates disciplinary matters are to be conducted and considered by three senior officeholders within the Association, reflecting the seriousness of the matter. If there was a problem with procedural fairness (which is difficult to see), the response would be for the President, General Secretary and Treasurer to recuse themselves from the deliberations and voting on the Management Committee.
Mr Chandra did not allege by the points of claim that his expulsion was invalid because he was purportedly expelled following a hearing by an improperly constituted Disciplinary Committee. Mr Chandra applied on the day before and again on the first day of the trial to amend the points of claim to introduce a claim based on a failure to comply with the Constitution, or a failure to afford procedural fairness. The amendment was opposed and was not permitted because the proposed amendment was imprecisely particularised and the allegations were unclear. A later attempt to provide a more clearly particularised amendment was abandoned on the third day of the trial and the matter was taken no further. The defendants were firm throughout the trial that they were defending the case on the basis of the filed points of claim. They were entitled to take that position. I am not going to decide this case on the basis of any matters other than those articulated in the filed points of claim: Banque Commercial SA En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Limited (1990) 169 CLR 279 at 284, 286-7 (Mason CJ and Gaudron J).
A report of the disciplinary hearing in relation to Mr Chandra, signed by Mr Sharma as Chairman of the purported Disciplinary Committee and dated 15 April 2023, was submitted to the Management Committee. The report recorded that Mr Chandra did not attend the hearing. It stated that the committee members “carefully considered the offence alleged to have been committed”. It recommended that given it was Mr Chandra’s first offence, he should be “reprimanded not to commit any offence in the future”.
The Management Committee addressed various disciplinary actions at a meeting on 17 April 2023, including the disciplinary proceedings against Mr Chandra. The minutes record that 19 members of the Management Committee were present, including the second defendant, Mr Singh (as Chairperson), as well as the third and sixth plaintiffs, Mr Nair and Mr Maharaj. They record that the Management Committee resolved unanimously to expel Mr Chandra from the Association. The minutes record that Mr Sushil Kumar said that Mr Chandra was on the Disciplinary Committee that had expelled Mr Anil Singh (the previous President) and Mr Parjeet Singh, and so should understand the consequences of acting as he did. Mr Singh stated that he agreed and added that as Secretary of Shree Pratinidhi Sabha, he would know better than anyone that his conduct would warrant disciplinary action.
By letter dated 20 April 2023, Mr Chandra was notified that the Management Committee had decided unanimously to vary the decision of the “Disciplinary committee” and decided to “expel your membership of the Sabha”. The notice stated that Mr Chandra had engaged in serious misconduct and that he ought to have known that his conduct would breach the Association’s Constitution and Code of Conduct and bring the Association into disrepute.
Mr Chandra alleged in these proceedings that the expulsion by the Management Committee was undertaken at the behest of Mr Singh, not for the reasons notified to Mr Chandra, and for the improper purpose of removing opposition to Mr Singh and intimidating potential opposition.
Mr Chandra has not made out these allegations. The decision to expel Mr Chandra was made by the Management Committee made up of 19 people, including two of the plaintiffs. It is significant that neither Mr Nair nor Mr Maharaj gave evidence that they were overborne by Mr Singh at the meeting on 17 April 2023 or that they made a decision otherwise based on the allegations advanced against Mr Chandra. Mr Kumar, who was called by the defendants, was a member of the Management Committee and was present at the meeting on 17 April 2023. He did not give evidence that supported Mr Chandra’s position and was not cross-examined about the meeting. Mr Kumar specifically denied that Mr Singh called the shots at the Management Committee meetings and that he pressured the other member to take disciplinary actions. It was put to Mr Singh that he had an improper purpose, which he denied.
The decision to expel Mr Chandra may appear to be a strong and heavy-handed response to the allegations made against him. However, it is not the role of the Court to make the disciplinary decision. I am not satisfied that the disciplinary response is so unreasonable that it indicates that the expulsion was orchestrated by Mr Singh for ulterior purposes. Mr Chandra has not made out his challenge to his expulsion by the Management Committee.
The second plaintiff (Mr Abhi Manu) became a member of the Association in 2013 and became a life member in June 2021. He has been a member of the Management Committee. He was a supporter of Mr Singh at the time Mr Singh became President in 2020.
Mr Manu was sent a notice of breach and disciplinary action on 19 January 2023. The notice made allegations concerning the conduct of Mr Manu on the day of the 2022 annual general meeting. The allegations were stated as follows:
- It is alleged that on or around 8.15 am on 18 December 2022, you blocked the Car park entry by parking your car behind Rama Gilbert's car blocking, the entry to the carpark of Ram Krishna Mandir and refusing to move after numerous request by Security. Your action caused a long queue to other road users of 275 Fifteenth Avenue, Austral. Your action resulted in other road users beeping and honking bringing the Sabha and Ram Krishna Temple to disrepute.
2. It was the decision of the Management Committee to keep the Temple premises closed to the non-members on the day of the Annual General Meeting. You attempted to undermine the good governance and management of the Sabha.
3. It is alleged that you failed to maintain good spirit and peace at all times and engaged in an activity which undermined the standing and integrity of SSDS to [the] wider community.
4. It is alleged that you used offensive language towards security guard and other members. Your behaviour was disruptive and you wilfully acted in [a] manner that has brought the Sabha into disrepute.
Mr Manu responded simply to the allegations, in each case asserting that “allegation is false and untrue” and asking for evidence.
On 16 March 2023, Mr Manu received a notice that there would be a hearing of the breach and disciplinary action on 4 April 2023 by the Disciplinary Committee. He was advised that he had a right to be heard and that he could bring witnesses and documentary evidence.
Mr Manu did not attend the disciplinary hearing. His evidence is that he was told before the hearing by the General Secretary, Ms Sanjana Shukla, that Mr Singh had appointed new committee members to conduct the hearing. His evidence was that he did not attend because the Committee was appointed by Mr Singh and was not constituted in accordance with the Constitution. His evidence is that he had no confidence in Mr Singh or the Committee.
The same committee that addressed the allegations against Mr Chandra (comprising Mr Sharma, Mr Narendra Maharaj and Mr Ram Singh) convened on 3 April 2023 to address the allegations against Mr Manu. The committee made the same conclusion for Mr Manu as it did for Mr Chandra. Its report for the Management Committee recorded that after carefully considering the offence alleged to have been committed, it recommended that Mr Manu be reprimanded not to commit any offence in the future, given that it was his first offence.
Unlike Mr Chandra, Mr Manu gave evidence that one of the reasons he did not attend the disciplinary hearing was that the Disciplinary Committee was not constituted in accordance with the Constitution. As I have noted, there is some support in the evidence that he was correct in that contention. However, that was not part of his pleaded case. Like Mr Chandra, two unsuccessful attempts were made by Mr Manu to introduce a pleading to the effect that the expulsion of Mr Manu from the Association was not authorised by the Constitution because of some kind of defect in the disciplinary process. The case was never articulated with adequate precision, which was particularly a problem given the application to amend was made so late.
The Management Committee addressed the disciplinary action in respect of Mr Manu at the meeting held on 17 April 2023. The minutes record as follows:
11.1 – Mr Abhi Manu – The Management committee by majority varied the decision of Disciplinary committee to expel his membership of the Sabha. (4 M.C members were of the view that be should be cautioned). The Chairman said, that Abhi Manu was a former VP and have sat here when we disciplined other members. He ought to have known the seriousness of his action. Senior V.P Sushil Kumar said, he himself was putting hands up previously in MC meeting in support of suspending people such as Sunil Singh, Anil Singh and Parjeet Singh.
It can be seen that the Management Committee rejected the recommendation by the so-called Disciplinary Committee to reprimand Mr Manu.
On 17 April 2023, the Disciplinary committee presented their recommendations to the Management committee.
The Management committee further considered all relevant information and oral evidence given by Mr Sant Kamal Rattan Das, Mr Umesh Prakash, Senior Vice President Sushil Kumar and Mr Rajendran Kumar at the meeting held on 17 April 2023. After considering and hearing to the oral evidence, the Management committee was satisfied that your conduct has breached the Constitution of the Sabha and the Code of Conduct of the Sabha. The decision has been made given the seriousness of your misconduct and the fact that you served as Vice President of the Sabha, you ought to have known that your conduct:
- will breach the Constitution of the Sabha; and
- will bring the Sabha into disrepute.
The Management committee by majority vote varied the decision of Disciplinary committee to expel your membership of the Sabha pursuant to Clause 12(1) of Sabha’s Constitution.
Mr Manu challenged the expulsion on the same grounds that were advanced by Mr Chandra to challenge his expulsion, that is: the expulsion was undertaken by the Management Committee at the behest of Mr Singh, and that the expulsion was not for the reasons given to Mr Manu but was for the improper purpose of removing opposition to Mr Singh and to intimidate potential opposition to him.
There was contested evidence before me about the incident that was alleged to have occurred in the car park on 18 December 2022. Mr Manu denied the allegations in his evidence in this case. Mr Kumar gave evidence that the facts were true. As with Mr Chandra, the proceedings before me do not require a de novo hearing of the allegations made against Mr Manu.
I am not satisfied that the allegations made against Mr Manu were a mere pretext to engineer his expulsion. The allegations were upheld by the Disciplinary Committee comprising Mr Sharma, Mr Narendra Maharaj and Mr Ram Singh. There was no sufficient evidence to conclude that this committee was suborned by Mr Ajay Singh in relation to the conclusion about Mr Manu. Nor is there a satisfactory basis to conclude that the Management Committee did not make its decision for the reasons given. The fact that 4 members of the Management Committee accepted that the allegations had been substantiated but that the punishment should be a caution is consistent with a process by which the Management Committee debated the issue and came to a majority view based on the allegations advanced against him (which he did not defend at the disciplinary hearing).
I am not satisfied that the evidence from Mr Manu about the events is so compelling, and Mr Kumar’s evidence so unpersuasive, that the stated reasons for the expulsion were false. It may be that Mr Manu did not block the car park. But the allegation was one for the committees of the Association to investigate, not the Court. Nor is it for the Court to determine whether the disciplinary response by the Management Committee was too harsh.
Mr Manu has not made out his challenge to his expulsion by the Management Committee.
Ms Rama Gilbert is the seventh plaintiff. She became a member of the Association in 2009 and was made a life member in 2021. She too has been a member of the Management Committee.
The evidence indicates that Mr Singh and Ms Gilbert clashed from a relatively early time after Mr Singh was elected as President. Ms Gilbert’s evidence was that Mr Singh treated her as his personal servant, which she resented. He denied doing so.
At a meeting of the Management Committee on 13 December 2021, Ms Gilbert remarked that Mr Singh should be removed from his office of President and was alleged to have been disruptive (among other things). After disciplinary action was taken (including a Disciplinary Committee hearing conducted by Mr Chandra (the first plaintiff), Mr Ram Singh and Mr Satya Nair), on 14 March 2022 the Management Committee resolved to suspend Ms Gilbert’s membership for a period of 12 months, effective from 14 March 2022. Although Ms Gilbert alleged in these proceedings that Mr Singh was, inappropriately, present during the Disciplinary Committee hearing (which he denied), she does not seek any relief in these proceedings in respect of the suspension.
On 18 December 2022, Ms Gilbert drove to the Temple with a view to attending the 2022 annual general meeting. There is a dispute about what happened when she arrived at the car park. It concerns the same general incident that led to the action against Mr Manu.
On 19 January 2023, Ms Gilbert received a notice of breach and disciplinary action, which made the following allegations:
- It is alleged that on or around 8.15am on 18 December 2022, you blocked the Car par[k] entry by parking your car in the middle of the Driveway and refusing to move after numerous request by the Security. Your action caused a long queue to other road users of 275 Fifteenth Avenue, Austral. Your action resulted in other road users beeping and honking bringing the Sabha and Ram Krishna Temple to disrepute.
- It was the decision of the Management Committee to keep the Temple premises closed to the non-members on the day of the Annual General Meeting. You attempted to undermine the good governance and management of the Sabha.
- It is alleged you used offensive language (including swearing) towards the security guard and other members of the Sabha. Your behaviour was disruptive and you wilfully acted in manner that has brought the Sabha into disrepute.
On about 16 March 2023, Ms Gilbert was notified about a disciplinary hearing before the Disciplinary Committee to be heard on 3 April 2023.
A Disciplinary Committee meeting was convened on 3 April 2023. The committee comprised Mr Harish Sharma, Mr Narendra Maharaj and Mr Ram Singh (the same members who convened to address the disciplinary allegations against Mr Chandra and Mr Manu on 4 April 2023). Ms Gilbert did not attend. The committee came to the same conclusion about the allegations against Ms Gilbert that it drew in relation to Mr Chandra and Mr Manu: it recommended that she be reprimanded.
As was the case with Mr Chandra and Mr Manu, the Management Committee resolved on 17 April 2023 to vary the decision of the Disciplinary Committee and to expel her from membership of the Association. The minutes of the meeting record:
11.6 – Rama Gilbert – The Management committee by majority vote varied the decision of Disciplinary committee to expel her membership of the Sabha. (4 M.C. members were of the view that she should be cautioned). Sushil Kumar said that she is currently on suspension and has not learnt her lesson. Umesh suggested that we cannot just give warnings all the time otherwise this people will never learn. Vinay suggested that she is more like a habitual offender and not learning from her mistakes.
I note that Mr Kumar’s remark that Ms Gilbert “is currently on suspension” appears to have been an error – her suspension lapsed in March 2023.
Ms Gilbert challenged the expulsion on the same grounds that were advanced by Mr Chandra and Mr Manu. Like them, she did not challenge the decision on the grounds that the Disciplinary Committee was not constituted in accordance with the Constitution.
The outcome of Ms Gilbert’s challenge is the same as that of Mr Chandra and Mr Manu. Like Mr Manu, she advanced evidence that concerned the events of 18 December 2022. I am not satisfied that the allegations made against her were a pretext to bring about an expulsion for the alleged improper purpose. The Disciplinary Committee was satisfied that the allegations were made out, as was the Management Committee. I am not satisfied that either committee was suborned by Mr Singh. Once again, the decision reached by the Management Committee (by majority) may seem to be a harsh one, but it is a matter for the Management Committee and not the Court. As was true for Mr Manu, the fact that 4 members of the Management Committee accepted that the allegations had been substantiated but that the punishment should be a caution is consistent with a process of debate where members of the Management Committee were free to take a dissenting position.
Ms Gilbert has not made out her challenge to her expulsion by the Management Committee.
Mr Nair became a member of the Association in about 2017 and became a life member in about June 2021. He was initially a supporter of Mr Singh and was elected to the Management Committee as a member of Mr Singh’s “team”.
Mr Nair received a notice of breach and disciplinary action dated 7 November 2023. The notice made various allegations. By way of summary, it was alleged that he:
(a) attended a meeting that he knew to be unauthorised and did so to undermine the good governance of the Association; (b) failed to fulfil cleaning and other duties allocated to him; (c) failed to leave a Management Committee meeting when asked to do so by the Chairman; and (d) failed to “remove the Mata’s mandir outside and cover the Gundam”.
Mr Nair received a notice dated 4 December 2023, advising that a disciplinary hearing would be conducted by the Disciplinary Committee on 7 December 2023.
Mr Nair attended the disciplinary hearing. The Disciplinary Committee was constituted by Mr Harish Sharma, Dr Karam Singh and Pt S K Sharma. Mr Nair does not allege in these proceedings that the Disciplinary Committee was not convened in compliance with the Constitution. The Committee concluded that the allegations were “proven”, apart from the allegation that he failed to attend duties, which was dismissed.
The precise recommendations made by the Disciplinary Committee are difficult to discern. However, the most serious recommendations appear to be that Mr Nair be expelled from the Management Committee and barred from attending elections for 24 months, with effect from 14 October 2023.
The minutes of a Management Committee meeting held on 18 December 2023 record: “Jitendra Nair to be suspended for 2 years and new membership form to be filled out and signed upon application after 2 years”. The minutes indicate that 17 persons were present at the meeting, including Mr Singh, Mr Kumar and Mr Maharaj (the sixth plaintiff).
By notice dated 22 December 2023, Mr Nair was advised that on 18 December 2023 the Management Committee unanimously (with one abstention) decided to adopt the recommendations made by the Disciplinary Committee and suspended his membership of the Association for a period of 24 months effective from 18 December 2023. He was informed that he would need to complete a new membership application form for approval on or before 18 December 2025. The notification is erroneous in two respects. First, the Disciplinary Committee did not recommend that he be suspended from membership for 24 months; it recommended that he be expelled from the Management Committee for 24 months. Secondly, the Disciplinary Committee recommended that expulsion from the Management Committee commence on 14 October 2023, not 18 December 2023. Mr Nair did not challenge the validity of the decision on either basis.
Mr Nair contends that he was expelled as a member of the Association in late 2023. Technically, the form of the disciplinary decision was that his membership was suspended for 2 years, although it was close to expulsion given that he was required to submit a fresh application to join the Association at the end of the period of suspension. Like Mr Chandra, Mr Manu and Ms Gilbert, he alleged that the expulsion was undertaken by the Management Committee at the behest of Mr Singh, and was not for the reasons given to Mr Nair but for the improper purpose of removing opposition to Mr Singh and to intimidate potential opposition to him.
Mr Nair advanced evidence to support the contention that he was not guilty in respect of the allegations that were made against him. That evidence does not persuade me that the decision of the Management Committee was made not because of the decision concerning the allegations against him, but for an ulterior purpose. Once again, my task is not to rehear the disciplinary allegations; it is to determine whether the decision was made for the improper purpose (and therefore contrary to the requirements of the Constitution) as alleged.
It is significant that Mr Maharaj, although a plaintiff in the proceedings, did not give evidence that supported Mr Nair’s allegation that the decision of the Management Committee was made otherwise than by reference to the allegations of misconduct against Mr Nair. Mr Kumar was a member of the Management Committee who made the decision and it was not suggested to him that he was party to a decision made on the basis advanced by Mr Nair.
Mr Nair has not made out his challenge to his suspension by the Management Committee.
The sixth plaintiff, Mr Maharaj, became a member of the Association in about 1996 and was a life member until 17 March 2024. He gave evidence. I accept that his evidence was given truthfully and that it is generally reliable.
At one time, Mr Maharaj was a supporter of Mr Singh. Their relationship appears to have soured from about 2022. At about that time, Mr Maharaj began to agitate a concern on his part that Mr Kumar owed approximately $20,000 to the Association and was refusing to pay it (an allegation denied by Mr Kumar and rejected by Mr Singh). Mr Maharaj also expressed concern to Mr Singh about members being expelled, suspended or excluded, including Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma.
Mr Maharaj was a member of the Management Committee. He attended a meeting on 28 February 2024. Mr Singh and Mr Kumar also attended, among others. The minutes record that one of the committee members, Mr Umesh Prakash, asked Mr Maharaj about who gave him authority to give away a lawnmower and brush-cutter to the person who serviced the lawnmowers. There was some discussion about the issue. Mr Kumar said that if the Management Committee could not deal with it on 28 February 2024, he would bring it up at the annual general meeting.
An annual general meeting was held on 17 March 2024. Mr Maharaj brought a motion seeking to have Mr Kumar expelled. The motion lapsed. Mr Kumar moved a motion that Mr Maharaj be expelled with immediate effect. The motion, dated 10 March 2024, alleged that Mr Maharaj had given a lawnmower away without authority, which amounted to theft of property.
The minutes of the meeting relevantly record as follows:
Motion 6: Carried – Mr Sushil Kumar moved the motion and was seconded by Yogesh Prasad. During the Management Committee meeting on February 28, 2024, a serious issue was brought to attention. Mr Ganesh Maharaj, a member of the committee and the Board of Governors, admitted that he had unauthorisedly provided a temple-owned lawn mower to an external party. Consequently, a motion was proposed for Mr Maharaj’s immediate expulsion from the Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha (SSDS) . Mr Umesh Prakash, addressing the SABHA, requested Mr Maharaj to elucidate his actions as outlined in the motion. In response, Mr Maharaj conceded to the act but defended his overall contributions to the temple.
The motion was then presented for a vote by show of hands. Out of the members present, eight opposed while an overwhelming majority supported the motion, resulting in Mr. Maharaj's immediate and permanent exclusion from SSDS. The motion was approved.
Mr Maharaj’s evidence is that he did give the lawnmower away but that it was in irreparable condition and was scrap. His evidence was that he had the authority of the Treasurer and the Management Committee. He also gave evidence that the lawnmower was later returned to the Association and promptly thrown away.
Mr Maharaj alleges in the points of claim (among other things) that the motion advanced at the annual general meeting was brought without affording him procedural fairness and unlawfully because the power to discipline members resided with the Management Committee. I accept those contentions.
The discipline of members is addressed in clause 12 of the Constitution. The Management Committee has power to expel or suspend members from the Association, which can occur following a written notice of the allegations, an opportunity to respond and a right to be heard at a hearing. The report of disciplinary action is to be tabled at the annual general meeting. None of this occurred. This right to procedural fairness cannot be circumvented by moving for expulsion on the basis of a motion that is put before an annual general meeting. Mr Maharaj was entitled to a proper hearing by the Disciplinary Committee, having been afforded with notice of the allegations against him and an opportunity to present evidence.
Mr Maharaj also alleged in the proceedings that the motion to expel him was brought on a “pre-textual basis” and that the real reason for the motion to expel him was as retaliation in response to his efforts to compel Mr Kumar to repay his (alleged) debt to the Association, as well as for the improper purpose of removing opposition to Mr Singh. This allegation was taken up with Mr Kumar in cross-examination. He denied that he owed any money to the Association. He also denied that he moved on the motion to expel Mr Maharaj as a tit for tat in response to the allegations made by Mr Maharaj.
I am not prepared to conclude that the motion to expel Mr Maharaj was brought on a contrived basis and that Mr Kumar’s true intent was retaliatory. However, the point throws up the significance of procedural fairness. Had there been a proper hearing of the allegations made against Mr Maharaj, he would have had a fair opportunity to explain all of the circumstances concerning the incident with the lawnmower and been able to challenge the sincerity of the allegations. He was wrongly denied that opportunity.
Mr Maharaj has established that the decision to expel him from membership of the Association is invalid.
There were incidents at the Temple on 16 February 2024 and on 23 February 2024 that led to further disciplinary action taken against Mr Chandra, Mr Manu, Mr Nair and Ms Gilbert, which they challenge in these proceedings.
On the evening of 16 February 2024, Friday prayers were being conducted at the Temple. There is disputed evidence about things that occurred during those prayers. It is another event where the perception and recollection of the participants is likely to be infected, to a greater or lesser degree, by a deeply-held feeling of self-righteousness.
The evidence I consider to be most reliable (but acknowledging the risk of imperfection and error) is that of Mr Vignesh Sivasubramaniyan, who was one of the ordained Hindu Priests conducting the prayer session on 16 February 2024, and a near contemporaneous note of the event made by Mr Kumar. The plaintiffs submitted that Mr Sivasubramaniyan’s evidence should be treated with caution because he has previously received a formal warning from the Association and is sponsored by the Association. I took this as a suggestion that he may be inclined to give evidence favourable to the defendants in order to protect his sponsorship. It was also suggested that his evidence is “vague and unreliable”. I do not accept the attack on Mr Sivasubramaniyan’s evidence. My impression after cross-examination was that his evidence, which was not vague, could be relied upon. The plaintiffs also attacked the credit of Mr Kumar. Mr Kumar is clearly a strong supporter of Mr Singh. He was directly involved in a number of the meetings and events that were the subject of disputed evidence. I do not accept that his evidence was given other than honestly, although the same observations I have made about Mr Singh’s evidence also apply to Mr Kumar. The plaintiffs submitted that Mr Kumar’s report of the events of 16 February 2024 (which he made on 18 February 2024) should be treated with “a high degree of caution” because it was not given by way of affidavit and was merely an annexure to an affidavit. I reject that submission. The report has the considerable advantage of contemporaneity and Mr Kumar stood by the report in his evidence in the proceedings.
It is also significant that I do not have to come to a concluded view about precisely what occurred on 16 February 2024 (or 24 February 2024). The attack in the proceedings concerns the disciplinary responses that were taken. My focus is on the validity of those steps.
With that background, having regard to all of the evidence but drawing principally on the evidence of Mr Sivasubramaniyan and Mr Kumar’s incident report, I draw the following conclusions. While the Friday prayer meeting was being conducted, Mr Rajnesh Prasad came into the praying area with a bag of coconuts and began to cut them with a large knife. This was part of a Hindu ritual. He was accompanied by others, including Mr Nair. Mr Sivasubramaniyan tried to tell them to stop until the prayer was finished, but they ignored him. Mr Sivasubramaniyan sought assistance from Mr Kumar (a Vice President) and Mr Umesh Prakash (who was the General Secretary). That led to a verbal confrontation involving Mr Kumar and Mr Prakash on the one hand, and Mr Chandra, Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma on the other. At about that time, Mr Krishna Raju grabbed the microphone from a singer on the stage. The sound system was turned off. Mr Kumar threatened to call the police and Mr Raju said words to the effect of “fuck the police”. Meanwhile, Mr Raju’s wife, Ms Usha Raju was yelling and behaving aggressively towards Mr Kumar, as were Mr Chandra, Mr Kishore, Mr Sharma and Ms Gilbert. Mr Kumar felt physically threatened, particularly from Mr Chandra, and was scared. Mr Kumar called the police. The police did not attend. Mr Kumar and Mr Sivasubramaniyan attended the Green Valley police station on the following day to report the events.
On 19 February 2024, notices were issued to each of Mr Chandra, Mr Nair, Mr Kishore, Mr Sharma and Ms Gilbert, banning them from entering the Temple for a period of 12 months on the basis of the events of 16 February 2024.
Mr Chandra and Mr Nair alleged by the points of claim that the banning occurred without proper authority, without authorisation under the Constitution, without procedural fairness, not for the reasons notified, and for the improper purpose of removing opposition to Mr Singh. The banning of 19 February 2024 was not taken up and separately challenged in the submissions. The 12-month ban (which has long expired) was contextual to the subsequent events, which were the subject of challenge by various plaintiffs.
There was evidence that after receiving the banning notices, Mr Kishore, Mr Sharma, Ms Gilbert and others attended the Green Valley police station and made some enquires. There was evidence from Mr Kishore, Mr Sharma and Ms Gilbert that they were told by the police that the notice was not a court order and that they were free to attend the Temple to pray. Accepting for these proceedings that the advice was given (noting that no-one from the Green Valley police station has had an opportunity to refute it), it was poor advice. The Association, as the owner of the land on which the Temple was located, was free to refuse entry to the premises if it wished to do so. It was not public property.
Notwithstanding the issue of the banning notices, Mr Chandra, Mr Nair, Mr Kishore, Mr Sharma and Ms Gilbert attended prayers at the Temple on 23 February 2024. There were about 200 attendees. It is reasonable to suggest that this was a provocative step, given the banning notices, even accepting that they had the advice from the police that they were free to attend.
There was evidence from some of the plaintiffs that at the end of the prayers, Mr Singh addressed the attendees from the front and specifically called out the names of Mr Chandra, Mr Nair, Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma and stated that they had been banned from the Temple and should leave immediately. Those plaintiffs gave evidence that this was a humiliating event. There was also evidence that they were accused of distributing papers, which they denied doing. I accept that being singled out and named personally and being asked to leave was a humiliating experience for them. However, there is a proper basis for concluding that they should not have been present at the prayers in the first place (even if they had been poorly advised that they were entitled to be present).
What followed was captured by a video camera (without sound) that was located within the Temple. The footage shows that several people, including Mr Chandra, Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma approached Mr Singh in an aggressive way. There was crowding and physical jostling. Ms Gilbert was among those who approached Mr Singh and can be seen gesticulating angrily towards him with her finger. There is evidence that Mr Singh was being challenged about who he was to ban people from the Temple. After a couple of minutes, Mr Singh moved to leave the prayer room and enter the adjoining dining room. His effort to shut the door behind him was blocked. Some footage from within the dining room shows that the altercation continued in the dining room. The police were called and attended. Everyone was asked to leave.
As noted above (in connection with the purported expulsion of Mr Maharaj), an annual general meeting of the Association was held on 17 March 2024. The minutes record that a motion was brought with notice that Mr Chandra, Mr Nair, Mr Manu and Ms Gilbert (and two others) not be allowed to become members of the Association in the future. The minutes indicate that by a show of hands (with 15 in dissent), the members relevantly voted that Mr Chandra, Mr Nair, Mr Manu and Ms Gilbert be banned from entering the Temple and be expelled from the Association.
By letter dated 21 March 2024 Mr Chandra was notified as follows:
The members at the AGM by majority agreed with the decision of Management committee to expel your membership of the Sabha for LIFE and FURTHER agreed to BAN YOU from entering the premises known as Shree Ram Krishna Temple located at 275 Fifteenth Avenue, Austral NSW 2179 for LIFE.
Mr Chandra alleges that the motion that he be expelled from membership for life and banned from attending the Temple was invalid, because it was placed before the meeting for an improper purpose (to remove opposition to Mr Singh), and was brought without procedural fairness and without due notice.
The outcome of your Disciplinary action was presented at the Annual General Meeting of the Sabha held on 17 March 2024 (“AGM”). There was a FURTHER motion that you shall not be allowed to become [a] member of SSDS in future.
The members of the AGM by majority agreed with the decision of Management committee to expel your membership of the Sabha for LIFE.
Mr Manu challenges the motion on the same grounds advanced by Mr Chandra.
There was no evidence of any notification of the decision to Mr Nair or Ms Gilbert, but both of them contend that the motion to expel them for life and ban them from attending the Temple was invalid.
The contentions advanced for Mr Chandra, Mr Manu, Mr Nair and Ms Gilbert in respect of the motion of 17 March 2024 were not well-developed.
The short answer to the allegations made by Mr Chandra and Ms Gilbert is that they were not members of the Association at the time of the motion (having previously being expelled). I cannot see how they have any standing to attack any action by the Association, not being members of it at the relevant time.
The same is true of Mr Manu. It may be said of Mr Manu, however, that it is curious that the decision on 17 March 2024 extended to him, because by all accounts he was not present during the prayers on either 16 or 23 February 2024.
Mr Nair is in a different position. As at 17 March 2024, his membership was subject to suspension. He had not been expelled. He was not afforded procedural fairness before he was expelled and banned for life. There is no evidence that the allegations were put to him, that the matter was investigated by the Disciplinary Committee or that a decision of the Disciplinary Committee was reviewed by the Management Committee. The decision to take disciplinary action against him was made without procedural fairness and was invalid.
For the reasons set out above, I have concluded that:
Mr Kishore and Mr Sharma are members of the Association and the Association was in error to proceed on the basis that they are not members;
the decision made at the annual general meeting on 17 March 2024 to expel Mr Maharaj is invalid because it was made otherwise than in accordance with the Constitution and without affording him procedural fairness; and
the decision made at the annual general meeting on 17 March 2024 to expel and ban Mr Nair is invalid because it was made otherwise than in accordance with the Constitution and without affording him procedural fairness.
Mr Kishore, Mr Sharma, Mr Maharaj and Mr Nair are entitled to relief to reflect those conclusions.
Mr Chandra, Mr Manu and Ms Gilbert have not made out the allegations concerning the conduct of the Association towards them. Nor has Mr Nair made out the balance of his claim.
The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Management Committee of the Association, and the Association itself, have conducted the affairs of the Association in the interests of Mr Singh rather than in accordance with its objects, or otherwise in a manner that is unfair or unjust to the members of the Association, including the plaintiffs*.*
They also seek orders that the Association be wound up pursuant to s 63(1)(f) or 63(1)(i) of the Associations Incorporation Act. In the alternative, they seek orders for the appointment of a receiver and manager of the assets and undertaking of the Association.
I am not satisfied that the declaratory relief should be granted, or that the Association should be wound up, or that a receiver and manager should be appointed.
It is plain that various members of the Association, including all of the plaintiffs, are and have been deeply unhappy about how the affairs of the Association have been conducted under the presidency of Mr Singh. I have no doubt that each of them feels genuinely aggrieved.
The plaintiffs are not the only persons who have deeply held views about the character of Mr Singh’s leadership. The plaintiffs led evidence from Ms Usha Raju. She has been a member of the Management Committee, has at times been the Treasurer and a Vice President. She gave evidence about concerns she had about the management processes at the Association. She also gave evidence that that she felt strongly intimidated by Mr Singh, including after he said to her: “I have managed to get rid of people who would stand against me. Who do you think is still there who can stand against me?”. Mr Singh denied that conversation.
I am not prepared to place any significant weight on Mr Raju’s evidence, including of the conversation to which I have just referred. Her antipathy towards Mr Singh appears to have commenced in about 2022 when she lost her position as Treasurer (but was appointed Vice President). She had felt humiliated by being replaced as Treasurer by the Assistant Treasurer. Mr Singh accepted that he wished Mr Vinay Singh to become Treasurer in place of Ms Raju, but his evidence was that was because Mr Vinay Singh had a strong financial background as Head of Revenue for CampaignAgent (REA Group). Mr Raju was subsequently asked if she wished to take charge of the Hindi school, which she accepted was a “big responsibility”. However, on 11 February 2024 she was stood down from that role and issued with a notice of breach and disciplinary action. Among other matters, it was alleged that she had persistently failed to return confidential documents to the Association. As noted above, she and her husband were involved in the fracas at the Temple on 16 February 2024. While it may be the case that Mr Raju has been the victim of oppressive or unfair conduct (I do not need to decide that question), my impression was that I needed to be cautious about accepting her as a reliable narrator of events given her obvious dislike of Mr Singh.
I have not been satisfied that the disciplinary actions taken against any of the plaintiffs was taken for an improper purpose. As I have noted in respect of the separate allegations, I am not satisfied that the Management Committee has been suborned to Mr Singh’s will, and so acts not in the interests of the Association but in order to advance the autocratic desires of Mr Singh.
Mr Singh plainly has detractors. My impression was that he had strongly held and largely inflexible views about proper standards of conduct and that he has strong views about the way that the Association should be managed. He has introduced many changes, which, he contends, have improved the financial affairs and amenities at the Association. His approach has resulted in clashes with members who do not share his vision for the Association. As I have noted, some of the disciplinary actions taken appear to be harsh. But the disciplinary decisions are not mine to make. It is for the Association to identify the standards of behaviour that it expects from its members and to police those matters. That is to be done by the Association’s organs of management, in accordance with the Constitution.
It would be a profound step to wind up the Association. It would also be a serious thing to appoint a receiver and manager. These should be seen as steps of last resort: The Estate of Lorenzo Antonio Pastrello [2024] NSWSC 734 at [12]. The plaintiffs have fallen well short of persuading me that either of these steps is warranted in this case.
I make the following orders:
Declare that Mr Nilesh Kishore and Mr Rajnesh Kant Sharma are members of the Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc (the Association).
Declare that the expulsion of Mr Ganeshwar Prasad Maharaj from membership of the Association at the annual general meeting held on 17 March 2024 is invalid.
Declare that the expulsion from membership of the Association and banning of Mr Jitendra Nair at the annual general meeting held on 17 March 2024 is invalid.
Otherwise dismiss the second amended summons.
If the parties cannot agree orders to be made about costs, they should advise my Associate of that fact by 4pm on 16 October 2026 and directions will be made to deal with the determination of costs.
**********
Chandra
Shree Sanatan Dharm Sabha of NSW Inc