Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT University) – Appellant
Versus
G.V. Sampath & Others – Respondent
Application Nos. 3559 & 3560 of 2013 & C.S. No. 518 of 2013
Decided On : 20-02-2015
Amendment Act 104 - Original Side Rules - Order 1 - Rule 4(7) – Civil Procedure Code - Section 92 - Order 7 Rule 1 read with 92 - Post of trusteeship – Jurisdiction - Approval of sanction or sanction of building plan - Unequivocal position of law - Filed under Order XIV Rules 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Order III Rule 1 r/w Clause 12 of Letters Patent seeking leave of this Court to institute suit on Original Side of this Court since defendants are residing outside jurisdiction of this Court and a part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of this Court - Sum and substance of averments made in the affidavit filed in support - 2nd defendant viz. Vellore Institute of Technology is a limb of 1st defendant viz. Institute of Technology - A Public Charitable Trust - 2nd defendant is having its administrative office - Hence a part of cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court – Further irregular admission forms to courses campus have been issued and several other administrative actions have emanated from said administrative office - 1st defendant also owns properties and defendants 1 & 2 have bank accounts in Indian Bank – Held, In case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature or where direction of Court is deemed necessary for administration of any such trust Advocate-General or two or more persons having an interest in trust and having obtained leave of Court may institute a suit whether contentious or not in principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by State Government within local limits of whose jurisdiction whole or any part of subject-matter of trust is situate to obtain a decree – Expression charitable trust of a public nature contemplates trust to be both charitable one and a public one, the beneficiaries must be public though not public at large, yet a classified section of it, no specified individuals must be unascertained persons - It is no doubt true Court prima facie satisfies either of breach of trust or of necessity for obtaining direction of Court before granting the relief - Apex Court in decision decided scope of Section 92 of Code and further held that maintainability of suit depends upon allegations in plaint and does not fall for decision with reference to averments in written statement - A reading of above judgments would show that plaintiffs have to satisfy that there should be a trust created for public purpose of charitable and religious nature and in case of any alleged breach of such trust direction of the Court is necessary for administration of such a trust - Suit must be representative one on behalf of public and is not by individuals for their own interest - Relief claimed in suit must be one or other reliefs mentioned in provision - In instant case existence of public trust was admitted by defendants - According to senior counsel appearing for 2nd defendant applicant herein that allegations made in plaint are only pertaining to statutory violations – But according to senior counsel for plaintiffs allegations in plaint are pertaining to breach of trust therefore a direction of this Court is necessary to set right administration of Trust - Applications are dismissed
R. Subbiah, J.
1. Application No.3559 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/2nd defendant praying to revoke the leave granted by this Court in Application No.3334 of 2013 in C.S.No.518 of 2013 dated 30.07.2013.
2. Application No.3560 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/2nd defendant praying to revoke the leave granted by this Court in Application No.3335 of 2013 in C.S.No.518 of 2013 dated 30.07.2013.
3. The applicant herein is the 2nd defendant in the suit. The respondents 1 & 2 herein are the plaintiffs. The 3rd respondent herein is the 1st defendant. The respondents 4 to 12 herein are the defendants 3 to 11 in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.
4. The plaintiff/respondents 1 & 2 herein have filed the suit, under Order 7 Rule 1 read with 92 of CPC, for the following reliefs:
(a) to frame a scheme for the proper conduct of the affairs of the 1st defendant Trust;
(b) to remove the defendants 3 to 11 from the post of trusteeship and appoint an administrator in the interregnum, pending framing of a scheme by this Court;
(c) to direct the defendants to render true and proper accounts in respect of the 1st defendant-Trust including that of the 2nd defendant from the year 2001 till date of taking of accounts;
(d) to reinstate the 1st plaintiff to the post of Vice-President of the 2nd defendant and allow the 1st plaintiff to discharge his duties as trustee of the 1st defendant-Trust.
5. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs had filed the Application Nos.3334 & 3335 of 2013 seeking leave of the Court.
6. A.No.3334 of 2013 was filed under Order XIV Rules 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Order III Rule 1 r/w Clause 12 of Letters Patent, seeking leave of this Court to institute the suit on the Original Side of this Court, since the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court and a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. The sum and substance of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of A.No.3334 are as follows:
The 2nd defendant viz., Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT University) is a limb of the 1st defendant viz., M/s.Vellore Institute of Technology - a Public Charitable Trust. The 2nd defendant is having its administrative office in Chennai. Hence, a part of cause of action has arisen at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, irregular admission forms to the courses at Chennai campus have been issued and several other administrative actions have emanated from the said administrative office at Chennai. The 1st defendant also owns properties at Adayar & Gandhinagar and the defendants 1 & 2 have bank accounts in Indian Bank at Anna Nagar, Chennai. There is an administrative office at Door No.W-73, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Since the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the present application has been filed seeking leave of this Court to institute the suit.
7. Application No.3335 of 2013 has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 92 of CPC, seeking leave of the Court to institute the suit against the 1st Defendant-Trust, with the following averments_
(1) There has been diversion of huge amount of money of over Rs.22 crores to another Trust in Chandigarh, which is absolutely unconnected with the 1st defendant- Trust.
(2) Without there being any approval from 2010 onwards, there has been admission for students in Chennai campus. The UGC has approved it only prospectively from 2013 onwards. Hence, the gullible students and parents are taken for a ride.
(3) There has been encroachment of government properties.
(4) No approval of sanction or sanction of building plan from concerned authorities.
(5) There has been indiscriminate cash drawings. The mode adopted is stated in the plaint.
(6) There has been wide spread misappropriation of trust funds for the personal benefit of trustees and aggrandizement of wealth.
(7) The accounts of the trust are not pr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
