Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Jayachandran, J.
D.Rejeev – Petitioner
Versus
D. Sunil and Ors. – Respondents
OP(C) NO.756 & 787 of 2022
Decided On : 09-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V.G.Arun, V.Jaya Ragi, R.Harikrishnan (Kambisseril), Neeraj Narayan, G.Sreekumar, Advs.
For the Respondent: Arun VG, G.Sreekumar (Chelur), Gopikrishnan Nambiar M, Joson Manavalan, K.John Mathai, Kuryan Thomas, P.B.Krishnan, Paulose C. Abraham, R.Chethan Krishna, Raja Kannan, Sabu George
IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that the relief sought in Ext.P6 application was not strictly an interim mandatory injunction and was within the scope of the suit, and therefore, granted the relief.
Headnote:
Injunction - Trust Dispute - Ext.P2 Trust deed - Rule 15 and 23 - Summary of the Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Rule 15 and 23 of the Ext.P2 Trust deed, which empowered the Managing Trustee to issue notice for a meeting of the Board of Trustees and an extraordinary general meeting. The court also referred to Order XXXIX, Rule 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which confer powers on the court to grant injunction if the matter is not covered by the rules. The court found that the relief sought in Ext.P6 application was not strictly an interim mandatory injunction and was within the scope of the suit, and therefore, granted the relief.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed to prevent a meeting of the Board of Trustees from being convened by the defendants without the involvement of the plaintiff, who, as per Rule 15 of the Ext.P2 Trust deed, was the sole authority to issue notice. An interim injunction was granted restraining the meeting, and the defendants filed Ext.P6 application seeking a direction to the plaintiff to issue notice for the meeting or permission for the Chairman to conduct the meeting.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought in Ext.P6 application was not strictly an interim mandatory injunction and was within the scope of the suit. The court set aside the impugned order, remitted the application to the trial court for fresh consideration, and directed the petitioners to file their counter affidavits within 20 days.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority to issue notice for a meeting of the Board of Trustees, the propriety of the proposed meeting, and the objections to agenda items regarding induction of new members and appointment of a new Manager.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief sought in Ext.P6 application was not strictly an interim mandatory injunction and was within the scope of the suit. The court also found that the objections raised by the petitioners were not sufficient to defer the proposed meeting, and directed the trial court to consider the contentions of the parties on merits.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the application was remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration. The petitioners were directed to file their counter affidavits within 20 days, and the trial court was instructed to pass orders expeditiously within one month from the date of commencement of hearing.
The Order impugned in both the Original Petitions afore referred is the one dated 01.04.2022 rendered in I.A.No.4/2022 in the suit, O.S.No.580/2021 of the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Neyyattinkara, the order being produced as Ext.P10 in both the Original Petitions. The Original Petition first above referred to, is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit and the second, by the 4th defendant, who is the wife of the plaintiff in the suit. O.P.(C) No.756/2022 is taken as the lead case.
2. Brief facts:
A suit was filed restraining the defendants from issuing any notice for convening the meeting of Board of Trustees, Annual General Meeting and extra ordinary General Meeting of the fifth defendant Trust, essentially premised on the ground that, the plaintiff - the managing Trustee of the fifth defendant Trust - alone is entitled to call for a meeting as per Ext.P2 bye-laws of the Trust. An interim order of injunction was granted, restraining defendants 1 to 3 from conducting any meeting of the Trust on 16.08.2021 as per the notice issued for the said purpose, and also restraining them from issuing further notice to convene any meeting of the Trust, except by issuing notice to the plaintiff seeking to convene any such meeting.
3. Thereupon, the first defendant D.Sunil filed Ext.P6 application seeking a direction to the plaintiff to issue notice to all the five members of the Board of Trustees of the fifth defendant Trust to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees immediately, on the agenda detailed in the affidavit attached to Ext.P6; or in the alternative, to permit the Chairman to conduct such meeting with notice to all members as provided in the Trust deed. The plaintiff D.Rejeev filed Ext.P7 counter affidavit seeking to defer the consideration of Ext.P6 interlocutory application till a decision is rendered by the Director of Public Instructions regarding the second defendant’s right to hold the post of Headmistress simultaneous with being a member of the Board of Trustees. The fourth defendant in the suit, who is the wife of the plaintiff, also filed a counter affidavit seeking dismissal of Ext.P6 interim application. By Ext.P10 impugned order, Ext.P6 interlocutory application was allowed, directing the plaintiff to issue notice within fourteen days to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees. The order also directed that if the plaintiff fails to issue notice as directed, the first defendant, who is the Chairman of the Trust, is permitted to apply to the Court for fixing a date for the meeting and issue notice to the members of the Trust through the Court.
4. The relative status of the parties in the suit vis-a-vis, their status in the Original Petitions are as follows:
The suit was instituted by Sri.D.Rejeev [petitioner in O.P.(C.) No.756/2022 and fourth respondent in O.P.(C.) No.787/2022]. The first defendant in the suit Sri.D.Sunil, is his brother, both of whom, being the children of late Sri.Daivadanam and Smt.Gomathy. The second defendant (second respondent in both the Original Petitions) is the wife of the first defendant. The third defendant, C.T.Sherly, (third respondent in both the Original Petitions) is the wife of the brother of petitioner/plaintiff. The fourth defendant in the suit [fourth defendant in O.P.(C.) No.756/2022 and the petitioner in O.P.(C.) No.787/2022] is the wife of the sole plaintiff, D.Rejeev. The fifth defendant in the suit (fifth respondent in both the Original Petitions) is Lazar Nadar Educational and Research Foundation, a Trust formed as per deed No.97/1998 of the S.R.O., Neyyattinkara, under which Trust, several educational institutions are being run.
5. The gist of the case espoused by the parties are as follows:
Plaintiff's case
The 5th defendant Trust was founded by the plaintiff, the defendants and their parents, L.Daivadanam and L.Gomathy. L.Daivadanam, was the Chairman of the Trust and he expired on 06.07.2014. L.Gomathy passed away on 21.02.2011. The plaintiff would assert that he is officia
