Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1511
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
T. Mohanraj – Appellant
Versus
Akila Thiruvidancore Siddha Vaidhya Sangam & Others – Respondents
O.S.A. No. 243 of 2007, O.S.A. No. 74 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 01-04-2015
For the Appellant:V. Selvaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, K.V. Babu, R2, J. Bharathi Raja, R3, V. Vijayakumar, Advocates.
Headnote:
Companies Act – Civil Procedure Code - Order 23 - Rule 3A - Bogus certificates – Claim of compensation - Permanent injunction - Plaintiff is a company registered under Companies Act and object of plaintiff is to promote medicine and to attain that object plaintiff has been running a hospital and college - Plaintiff is governed by bye-laws which provides for various regulations regarding appointment and election of various office bearers including to office of president - Further case of plaintiff is that several irregularities were committed by defendant and some other members - When defendant was appointed as Receiver he committed several malpractices - Suit was transferred to file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court - Subsequently defendant has committed several irregularities by issuing bogus certificates unauthorized collected tuition fees and has purchased several properties in his name from and out of funds of plaintiff - Defendant pursuant to a general body meeting resigned and new office bearers were elected was authorized to act as Administrative Secretary and also to substitute himself in pending suit on file of IV Assistant City Civil Court - Defendant was relieved from post of receiver by this court by virtue of orders in CRP - Several suits there after came to be filed by defendant and other students before different courts to immobilize elected members of plaintiff - Even after being ousted from seat of president defendant has been collecting funds – Held, A transferee of property which is subject-matter of contract - This Court also explained that a person who has a direct interest in subject-matter of suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale may be imp leaded as a proper party on his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - This Court concluded that a purchaser of suit property subsequent to suit agreement would be a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased it with or without notice of contract but a person who claims a title adverse to that of defendant vendor will not be a necessary party - Let us consider scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties - Said sub-rule is not about right of a non-party to be imp leaded as a party but about judicial discretion of court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding - Discretion under sub-rule can be exercised either or on application of plaintiff or defendant or on an application of a person who is not a party to suit - Court can strike out any party who is improperly joined - Court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party - Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as court deems fit to impose - In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice - In present case appellant could not be held to be a stranger being beneficiary of Trust property - Trial Court was justified in imp leading him as a party - High Court erred in interfering with order of trial Court - Ratio laid down in above judgment is squarely applicable to present facts of case - Upon perusal of records this court is also of same view that first respondent is a necessary party to suit as he has been appointed as an administrative secretary - First respondent has been a party in all suits and has successfully imp leaded himself in other suits also - Validity of minutes of meeting and alleged removal of first respondent can be decided only after full-fledged trial - Therefore this court does not find any error in order of Single Judge imp leading first respondent as a defendant – Appeals dismissed
R. Mahadevan, J.
1. The appeal in O.S.A. No 243/2007 has been filed by the Defendant challenging the order dated 16.03.2006 in O.A 843 of 2005 appointing MrN.Harichandran, District Judge (Retired) as interim administrator of the plaintiff.
2. The Appeal in O.S.A No 74 of 2013 has been filed against the order dated 29.6.2012 in Application No.4907/2011 impleading the Mr.D.Abraham as 4th Defendant in the suit. The said D.Abraham has filed M.P No 1/2011 in O.S.A 243 of 2007 to implead himself as a respondent in the appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
A. The plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act and the object of the plaintiff is to promote siddha medicine and to attain that object, the plaintiff has been running a hospital and college. The plaintiff is governed by the bye-laws which provides for various regulations regarding the appointment and election of various office bearers including to the office of the president. The further case of the plaintiff is that several irregularities were committed by the defendant and some other members. When the defendant was appointed as Receiver in the suit in C.S No 1380/92, he committed several malpractices. The suit was transferred to the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court. Subsequently the defendant has committed several irregularities by issuing bogus certificates, unauthorisedly collected tution fees and has purchased several properties in his name from and out of the funds of the plaintiff. The defendant pursuant to a general body meeting resigned on 31.08.2002 and the new office bearers were elected and D.Abhram was authorised to act as Administrative Secretary and also to substitute himself in the pending suit on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court. The defendant was relieved from the post of receiver by this court on 14.08.2003 by virtue of orders in CRP (PD) 914 of 2003. Several suits there after came to be filed by the defendant and other students before different courts to immobilise the elected members of the plaintiff. Even after being ousted from the seat of president, the defendant has been collecting funds. Inter alia, stating many other things, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s Administration including collection of fees from the student of the college and also to direct the defendant to render accounts in respect of the amounts collected from the students from 15-08-2003.
4. The written statement has been filed disputing the averments in the plaint and contended that the alleged minutes of the general body meeting on 31.08.2002 are a forged one and a similar plea of forgery raised in I.A 383 of 2003 in O.S No 272 of 2003 was accepted by the District Munsiff, Kuzhiturai. Relying upon various other pleadings contended that since he continues to be the president of the sangham, the defendant has sought for the dismissal of the suit. Pending disposal of the suit, an original application in O.A 843 of 2005 was filed for injunction. After considering the rival contentions, this court by an order dated 16.03.2006 appointed Mr.N.Harichandran, a retired District Judge as the Interim Administrator. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal in O.S.A No 243/07 has been filed. In the meanwhile Mr.Justice A.Ramamurthy had been appointed as the Interim Administrator by the order of this Court on 20.06.2006 in the place of Mr.N.Harichandran.
5. During the pendency of the suit 752/05, D.Abraham, claiming to be the Administrative secretary of the plaintiff and citing that he is a party to various other proceedings filed the application in A. No.4907/2011 to implead himself as a defendant in the suit alleging collusion between L.Noel Raj, the president of the plaintiff and the defendant, on 11.10.2011. On 14.10.2011, a memorandum of compromise was filed by the plaintiff and the defendants whereby the plaintiff has sought for the withdrawal o
