SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Del) 1261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
VINAY RAI & ANR. - Plaintiff
Versus
RAM KRISHAN AND SONS CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS. - Defendants
I.A. No.11202/2008 (U/S 92 CPC) AND CS(OS) 1931/2008
Decided on : 20.11.2009

Advocates appeared:
Through:Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinod K. Shukla and Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocates.
Through:Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Sibbal, Mr. Naveen Chawla and Mr. Sandeep Mittal, Advocates.

A suit under Section 92 of the CPC should be of a representative character brought in the interest of the public for vindication of public rights.

Headnote:

Section 92 - Charitable Trust - Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the management and administration of a charitable trust, with allegations of mismanagement, diversion of funds, and breach of fiduciary duties by the trustees. The plaintiffs sought court intervention to remove existing trustees, appoint fresh trustees, and conduct a full-fledged inquiry into the trust's affairs.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the suit and that the allegations of mismanagement and wrongful management were not substantiated. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' interests were personal and not in the public's welfare, and therefore, the application for leave and the suit were rejected and dismissed.

Issues: Locus standi of the plaintiffs, allegations of mismanagement and wrongful management of the trust, court intervention under Section 92 of the CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs did not have the required standing to maintain the suit and that the allegations of mismanagement were not substantiated. Additionally, the court emphasized that a suit under Section 92 should be of a representative character brought in the interest of the public for vindication of public rights.

Final Decision: The application for leave and the suit were rejected and dismissed.

JUDGMENT

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1.This order will dispose of an application (IA 11202/08) seeking leave to file a suit, under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereafter “the CPC”).

2. Briefly, the suit averments, as well as those in the application are that on 14-5-1974, late Manbhari Devi (hereafter “the Settler”)-grandmother of the first plaintiff (hereafter “Vinay”) and the second defendant (“Anil”) set up the first defendant PUBLIC charitable trust (hereafter “the trust”). The trust comprised of Kulwant Rai, (father of Anil and Vinay), and his two brothers, Balwant Rai and Jaswant Rai. The objects of the trust were, charitable and included inter alia, imparting education, setting up and supporting societies or trusts, which were to promote education, health, and well being of people, and also promote literary and other associations, etc. The trust was registered in 1980; the settler, on 20-4-1981, appointed Kulwant Rai as the trust’s Chairman for life, and also appointed Vinay as Managing Trustee, responsible for its day to day affairs. It is alleged that Anil and Satya Paul were appointed as trustees, for two years. Vinay was appointed as Managing Trustee, which position, he says, he continues to hold.

3. The suit describes the relationship of Vinay with Anil, and the third defendant (Anil’s wife); the fourth defendant (Anil’s daughter) fifth defendant (Anil’s son), the sixth defendant (Anil’s sister in law) and seventh defendant, a close friend of Anil. The eighth defendant is the mother of third defendant, and the ninth defendant, an old employee of Anil. It is contended that since education was a dear subject of the settler, the trust applied for allotment of land, to the Land and Development office (L&DO) of the Central Government, for the purpose of setting up a higher secondary school, to provide affordable school education. Consequently, the trust set up the Rai school, (now called BANYAN TREE school), a recognized institution. It is contended that under Vinay’s guidance, a management school, Institute of Integrated Learning and Management, was started, which temporarily functioned from the Rai school premises in 1994. The school and the management institution received benefit of tax exemption under Income tax laws. The suit states that with age, Shri Kulwant Rai, started suffering from failing health and his memory deteriorated. Since Anil had interest in the activities of the trust, the Vinay, in good faith, along with Kulwant Rai, allowed him and his wife to look after its affairs. However, with passage of time, they started to misguide Kulwant Rai, and Vinay, and excluded information from them. Kulwant Rai and Vinay believed them. It is contended that Anil and Defendant Nos 3 to 9 systematically, and in a planned manner, since 2002-2003, succeeded in diverting crores of rupees from the trust, to new trusts, societies, foundations, set up by them and other defendants with similar names. These trusts, societies, etc are sham institutions set up to defraud the trust of crores of rupees meant for charitable purposes; the diverted money is being used for personal gain.

It is alleged that since Kulwant Rai started suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, since 2000, the other defendants started getting papers signed by him, and later changing the character of the board of trustees, of the trust, which they systematically commercialized. It is alleged that a bare perusal of the trust’s balance sheets would reveal that considerable amounts were spent for purposes alien to the public at large, and meant to benefit only the Defendant No. 2 to 9. The suit refers to another pending suit, CS (OS) 294/2006, where Anil has sought benefit and relief in respect of a document known as “RAI FAMILY AGREEMENT”; reference is also made to another suit, CS (OS) 1158/2005, which claims partition of a residential house. It is alleged that the Defendant Nos. 2 to 9 have sidelined the charitable objectives of the trust, and ar







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top