Prasad v Singh - [2023] QCAT 219

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Prasad v Singh & Anor [2023] QCAT 219

PARTIES:

LALTA PRASAD

(applicant)

SUKHVIR SINGH

QUEENSLAND VEDIC CULTURAL CENTRE PTY LTD

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO:

MCDO523/21

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matter

DELIVERED ON:

31 May 2023

HEARING DATE:

24 November 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator LeMass

Adjudicator Scott-Mackenzie

ORDERS:

The second respondent, Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd, pay to the applicant, Mr Lalta Prasad, $2,123.20 within 14 days of this order.

CATCHWORDS:

MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – action for debt - where monies paid to voluntary association – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding - whether director had the authority of the board of the voluntary association to sell shares in the voluntary association and a share agreement – whether monies for shares in the voluntary association or donations – whether the monies are repayable

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 126, s 127

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 11, schedule 3

Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors (MCDO 60589/20) (heard on 22 November 2022).

Pal v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Anor (MCDO 60617/20) (heard on 22 November 2022).
Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (MCDO 60610/22) (heard on 23 November 2022)
Deo v Singh & Anor (MCDO 524/21) (heard on 23 November 2022)
Junker v Hepburn [2010] NSWSC 88

Colin R Price & Associates Pty Ltd v Four Oaks Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 764

Singh v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (MCDO 970/20, decided on 18 May 2021)
Prasad v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QCATA 174
Hill v Berghofer [2011] QCATA 34
Ziegeler t/a Ziegco Pty Ltd v Recochem Incorporated [2010] QCATA 78
Spain v Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 138

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

First respondent:

Second respondent:

Self-represented

Mr. Sukarm Singh

Dr Sukhvir Singh

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction
[1]This proceeding, and four other proceedings arising out of similar facts, were heard by this Tribunal on 22, 23 and 24 November 2022.[1] The decision in each proceeding should be read together.
[1]Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd Ors (MCDO 60589/20) (heard on 22 November 2022); Pal v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd & Anor (MCDO 60617/20) (heard on 22 November 2022); Padarath & Anor v Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (MCDO 60610/20) (heard on 23 November 2022); Deo v Singh & Anor (MCDO 524/21) (heard on 23 November 2022).
[2]The decision of the Tribunal in this proceeding is that the second respondent, Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (QVCC), pay to the applicant, Mr. Lalta Prasad, $2,123.20, $2,000.00 a refund of monies paid by him to QVCC for two shares in the company but not issued to him together with $123.20 the fee on filing the application in the proceeding, within 14 days of this order.

Application
[3]On 17 July…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Prasad v Singh

Details

AGLC: Prasad v Singh [2023] QCAT 219
Case: [2023] QCAT 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case, Prasad v Singh, involved a dispute between Lalta Prasad and the Queensland Vedic Cultural Centre Pty Ltd (QVCC), with Dr Sukhvir Singh also being a respondent. The case was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with the matter concerning a claim for a debt. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding, whether Mr Jitendra Deo had the authority of the board of directors of QVCC to obtain funding from members to service the bank loan by the sale of shares in QVCC, whether the monies paid by Mr Prasad to QVCC were to purchase shares in QVCC or donations, and whether the monies were repayable by QVCC to Mr Prasad. The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide the proceeding, that Mr Deo had the authority of the board of directors of QVCC to agree with Mr Prasad as he did, that the monies paid by Mr Prasad to QVCC were paid to purchase two shares in QVCC, and that the principal sums paid by Mr Prasad were repayable by QVCC to him. Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered that QVCC pay to Mr Prasad $2,123.20, $2,000.00 in respect of the shares in QVCC he agreed to purchase but did not receive together with $123.20 the fee on filing the application in the proceeding, within 14 days of this order.

Orders