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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 1277

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR
E.V. Ananthara, s/o, K. Venugopal, No.23, Kamakshiamman Koil Street, Tindivanam – 604 001, and another
Versus
Rajas Educational Trust rep. by its Life Chairman – cum - Trustee, Professor K.V. Natarajan, M-97/B, 30th Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 90 and others
A.No.3712 of 2004 in A.No.3191 & 3192 of 2004 and O.A.No.725 of 2004 in C.S.No.697 of 2004
Decided on : 07-10-2004

Advocates Appeared:
M/s.K. Ravichandrababu for Mr. K. Vijayakumar, Advocate for Applicant/Plaintiff; Mr. K. Kannan for Mr. R. Yasohvardhan, Advocate for Applicant/Plaintiff. M/s R. Yashod Vardhan for Mr. K. Kannan, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant; Mr. K.T. Jayakumar for Mr.K. Ravichandrababu, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant.

Factual accuracy of assertions regarding jurisdiction is crucial in determining the court's jurisdiction.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Trust - Letters of Patent Act - Section 12 - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The defendants sought to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiffs under Clause 12 of the Letters of Patent Act, arguing that the cause of action arose at a different location than asserted by the plaintiffs.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the principal office of the Trust had been transferred to a different location, and the plaintiffs' assertion of jurisdiction was factually incorrect. As a result, the leave granted was revoked, and the related applications were dismissed.

Issues: Jurisdiction, Transfer of Principal Office, Factual Accuracy of Assertion

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the factual discrepancy regarding the location of the principal office of the Trust, which impacted the jurisdiction of the court.

Final Decision: The application to revoke the leave was allowed, and the related applications were dismissed. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Judgment :

1. The applicants/defendants have filed this application to revoke the leave granted in Application Nos. 3191 & 3192 of 2004.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent-plaintiffs filed Application Nos. 3191 and 3192 of 2004 praying leave of this Court under Clause 12 of the Letters of Patent Act, on the ground that cause of action arise at Chennai since the Principal office of the plaintiff-Trust is situate at No.M97/B, 30th Cross St., Besant Nagar, Chennai-90. The respondent-plaintiff have filed the suit for the relief (i) to remove the respondents/defendants from the post of Trustees permanently from the first plaintiff-trust and (ii) for the permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendants and their men from in an manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful management of the trust and the educational institute called P.V. Polytechnic College and the properties belonging to the trust.

3. The contention of the applicants/defendants is that the principal office of the Trust has long before transferred from Chennai to Tindivanam, that the parties have filed suits at Principal District Munsif Court and Principal Sub Judge at Tindivanam and therefore this Court has got no jurisdiction and the leave granted should be revoked.

4. Leave to sue was granted on the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs that the principal office of the Trust is situate at Besant Nagar, Chennai. But even as early as 12.6.2001, as seen from Page 1 of the typed set of papers filed by the defendants, the Trust has passed a resolution holding that the Principal Office shall be at P.V.Polytechnic, Tindivanam, Gingee Road, Pelakuppam Village & Post, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District and there is no branch office for the Trust. The same has been duly intimated to the Government. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichirappalli has also accepted the same as seen from the letter dated 15.6.2001, copy of which is enclosed at page 5 of the same typed set. The defendants in this suit have filed O.S.No.121 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Tindivanam, which has been subsequently renumbered as O.S.No.14 of 2000 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam, praying for the relief of removing, the defendants and 2 therein from the office of the Trust and to render true accounts, whereunder in the cause of action paragraph it was mentioned that the cause of action arose at Tindivanam where the Trust properties are situate. The second respondent-plaintiff has also filed a suit in O.S.No.341 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam for the relief of a declaration that they are entitled to the office of the management of the P. V. Polytechnic for a period of 2 1/2 years and to grant permanent injunction to restrain the first and second defendants therein from interfering in any manner in the administration of the trust by the plaintiffs.

5. Even on 24.1.2004, the respondents-plaintiffs counsel has sent a notice to the second defendant addressing as Chairman of the Raja’s Educational Trust at Tindivanam as seen from page 59 of the typed set of papers and also at page 64 of the typed set of papers. The above documents i.e., Resolution dated 12.6.2001, proceedings of the Income-tax Department dated 15.6.2001 and Lawyer’s notice dated 24.1.2004 and pendency of the two suits one at Principal District Munsif Court and another at Fast Track Court-I, Tindivanam filed by the contesting parties against each other would clearly show that the Trust is functioning at Tindivanam only.

6. Yet another important point to be noted is that a Caveat Petition No.1546 of 2004 was already filed by the defendants on 9.8.2004. But no notice was given to the caveator while moving the applications for leave to sue. In this matter leave to sue was granted on 25.8.2004. The caveator was put on notice only on 7.9.2004 before filing the Original Application No.725 of 2004 for interim injunction. Thus it is






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