Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Mr. Anil Rajkumar Mukerji & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
RT. REV Paritosh Canning & Ors. – Respondents
IA GA No. 4 of 2021, IA GA No. 6 of 2023, IA GA No. 7 of 2023 With APO 83 of 2020
Decided on : 13-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Jishnu Saha, Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Adv., Mr. A. K. Awasthi, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Suman Dutt, Adv., Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv., Ms. Shrayashee Das, Adv., Mr. Domingo Gomes, Adv., Mr. B. P Tewari, Adv., Mr. Sankalp Narain, Adv., Mr. Priyankar Saha, Adv., Mr. Rohit Amit Sathlekar, Adv., Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sayan Roy Choudhury, Adv., Mr. Satyaki Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. N. Sharma, Adv., Mr. Kanishk Kejriwal, Adv., Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Adv., Ms. Surbhi Dhanuka, Adv.
The Court has parens patriae jurisdiction over public trusts and can always act in the public interest in respect thereof. The Court can grant interim relief pending the decision of a preliminary issue at the trial of a suit. The composition of the Board of Governors of the two schools should be revisited as there are only two members of the Board of Governors and the requisite quorum is not available.
Headnote:
LA MARTINIERE SCHOOL - SECTION 92 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - ORDER 41 RULE 33 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - ISSUES OF MAINTAINABILITY - INTERIM INJUNCTION - PUBLIC TRUST - MINORITY INSTITUTION - DECREE DATED OCTOBER 22, 1832 - DECREE DATED MAY 23, 1946 - SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT - BOARD OF GOVERNORS - EX-OFFICIO GOVERNORS - ADDITIONAL GOVERNORS - QUORUM - CHRISTIAN RELIGION - PAREMS PATRIAE JURISDICTION - Will of Major General Claude Martin - Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Issues of maintainability - Interim injunction - Public trust - Minority institution - Decree dated October 22, 1832 - Decree dated May 23, 1946 - Scheme of management - Board of Governors - Ex-officio Governors - Additional Governors - Quorum - Christian religion - Parems patriae jurisdiction - Will of Major General Claude Martin - The maintainability of the appeal is upheld. The interim order granted on July 12, 2019, is clarified and modified. The Board of Governors of the two schools will not take any decisions regarding the management of the two schools till the disposal of the interlocutory applications. The Ex-officio Governors will not, till the disposal of the interlocutory applications, appoint any person as Additional Governors. All decisions taken by the Board of Governors after the institution of the suit or after the passing of the initial order therein, on July 12, 2019, be not given effect to, except those pertaining to the day-to-day administration and functioning of the two schools. No decision pertaining to any new school should be given effect to or any steps taken in pursuance thereof till the interlocutory applications are decided.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, as plaintiffs, had filed a suit alleging mismanagement in the administration of two schools, and claiming reliefs relating to appointments to the additional Board of Governors of the two schools and framing a scheme for the administration and management of the two schools.
Finding of the Court:
The suit is maintainable. The Board of Governors of the two schools will not take any decisions regarding the management of the two schools till the disposal of the interlocutory applications. The Ex-officio Governors will not, till the disposal of the interlocutory applications, appoint any person as Additional Governors. All decisions taken by the Board of Governors after the institution of the suit or after the passing of the initial order therein, on July 12, 2019, be not given effect to, except those pertaining to the day-to-day administration and functioning of the two schools. No decision pertaining to any new school should be given effect to or any steps taken in pursuance thereof till the interlocutory applications are decided.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal is maintainable? 2. Whether the interim order granted on July 12, 2019, should be clarified and modified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The suit is maintainable as the pleadings of the appellants/plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and inconvenience was also in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs in granting interim reliefs, and the Court had retained the jurisdiction to look into and rework the composition of the Board of Governors, modify the scheme and issue necessary directions with regard thereto if the occasion so arises. 2. The interim order granted on July 12, 2019, is clarified and modified as the Board of Governors of the two schools will not take any decisions regarding the management of the two schools till the disposal of the interlocutory applications, the Ex-officio Governors will not, till the disposal of the interlocutory applications, appoint any person as Additional Governors, and all decisions taken by the Board of Governors after the institution of the suit or after the passing of the initial order therein, on July 12, 2019, be not given effect to, except those pertaining to the day-to-day administration and functioning of the two schools. No decision pertaining to any new school should be given effect to or any steps taken in pursuance thereof till the interlocutory applications are decided.
Final Decision: The appeal is disposed of by holding that the appeal is maintainable. GA 6 of 2023 has lost its force in view of the fact that, every learned counsel who wanted to address the Court on the virtual platform was allowed to do so. APO 83 of 2020 with all other connected applications are disposed of without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Appellants have assailed an order dated August 18, 2020 passed by the learned Trial Judge clarifying an order dated July 12, 2019 in the present appeal.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the appeal have questioned the maintainability of the appeal by way of an interim application being IA GA No. 4 of 2021. An application being IA GA No. 6 of 2023 has been filed seeking permission of the Court to address the Court in the virtual platform. Another application being IA GA No. 7 has been filed for framing a scheme for management and administration.
3. Since, an issue of maintainability of the appeal had been raised at the behest of the respondent nos 1 and 2 they were allowed to address the Court first. The respondent no. 7 has supported the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the appeal and they were heard immediately after the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, the appellant, the respondent no. 8 and the added respondent no. 10 had addressed the Court. All the parties had addressed the Court on the point of maintainability as also on the merits of the case.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that, the suit filed by the plaintiffs primarily challenged wrong termination of the four plaintiffs, and challenged the appointment of the defendant nos. 3 to 6. The plaintiffs had also prayed for framing a scheme for the administration of the institution run by the Public Charitable Trust. He has pointed out that, an ad interim order dated July 12, 2019 was passed by the learned Trial Judge restraining the Board of Governors of the school not to take any decision regarding the management of the school till the disposal of the interim application. The Ex-officio Governors had been restrained from appointing any Additional Governors. The Appeal Court had by an order dated July 25, 2019 appointed administrator over the board of Ex-officio Governors. Two sets of appeal had been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Such appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been withdrawn as it was agreed that the interim arrangement put in place by the order dated July 12, 2019 stood restored. An application for effecting of the order dated July 12, 2019 had been made in which an order dated August 19, 2020 was passed. The Trial Court had observed by the impugned order dated August 18, 2020 that the order dated July 12, 2019 needs to be clarified. The order dated July 12, 2019 was not intended to overrun into the next term. In the appeal from the order dated August 20, 2020, the Appeal Court passed an interim order dated October 8, 2020 which was clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed by the order dated November 27, 2020 that the order dated October 8, 2020 sets out the contours of the disputes and that it did not take away the right of the defendants to contend that such issues need not be decided in the appeal.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that, the application being GA No. 1517 of 2019 in which, the initial order of injunction dated July 12, 2019 was passed does not contain any prayer inviting the Court to frame any interim scheme of management. In any event, formulation or modification of the existing scheme, if at all, is required to be made, that should be decided at the final hearing of the suit. The parties have to be given an opportunity to lead evidence with regard to such an issue. At the final hearing, the Court has to examine as to whether, there were breach of trust as claimed or whether the plaintiffs were not suing to vindicate their personal or individual rights or whether there was any case of breach of trust made out. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2141 (Swami Paramatmanda Saraswati & Anr. Vs. Ramji Tripathi and Anr.) and 2008 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 115 (Vidyodaya Trust vs. Mohan Prasad R and Ors.).
6. Learned advocate appearing for the respond
