Without a validly appointed executive since 2018 and with membership split into two warring factions after convictions for gaming grant frauds, the High Court approved attempts by Manukau Sanatan Sabha to hold an informal meeting to chart the way forward.
Manukau Sanatan Sabha is an incorporated society based in south Auckland, promoting interests of Hindu members from the Fiji Indian community. The High Court was told Society affairs have been dysfunctional for nearly five years. This followed an Internal Affairs investigation into misuse of gaming grant funding. Five Society members and Manukau Sanatan Sabha itself were convicted in late 2018 following evidence of false quotes supporting funding applications and a failure to use money obtained for promised activities. Two members, Rakesh Prasad and Pradeep Chand, were separately convicted for obstruction; encouraging individuals to lie when questioned by Internal Affairs investigators. Subsequently, Sanatan Sabha’s affairs drifted along informally with no annual general members meetings held and financial statements filed late. Society rules see terms of office for the Society executive expire each year. With no annual members meeting held, no replacements were ever voted into office.
One member, Satish Chand, objected to Pradeep Chand informally handing over running of Society affairs in 2020 to Rakesh Prasad. Satish said Pradeep had no authority to do so and he challenged plans to call a special meeting of members. Satish Chand told the High Court there were concerns this unelected executive would sell Society assets. He alleged ‘false accounts’ had been filed with the registrar of incorporated societies. Unaudited accounts filed for the year ended March 2020 record Manukau Sanatan Sabha as owning three properties in Papatoetoe. Satish Chand leases one of these properties. Caveats have been registered against titles to Society properties, blocking registration of any sale.
Justice Fitzgerald ruled the proposed informal meeting of members should go ahead. The Society had no validly appointed executive. The proposed special meeting could make no decisions affecting Society activities other than propose a date for a formal general meeting of members to appoint a new executive. Justice Fitzgerald warned the two opposing factions that the proposed special meeting had to be held in an open and transparent manner. Aired in the High Court were suggestions there was no complete list of current members and allegations that factions were planning to ‘stack’ meetings with newly appointed members sympathetic to their side.
Chand v. Chand – High Court (28.02.22)
22.047