Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. MATHIVANAN, J.
G.V. Sampath - Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Vellore Institute of Technology, A Public Charitable Trust & Ors. - Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 42, 43 of 2016 & C.M.P. Nos. 317 to 320 of 2016
Decided On : 28-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V. Raghavachari
For the Respondents: Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Mrs. Aarthy, Mrs. Chitra Sampath, Mr. G. Viswanathan, Mr. A. Saravanan, Mr. N. Ganesh Kumar, Mr. K. Purushothaman
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX - Rule 1 and 2 - Trusteeship of Vellore Institute of Technology Trust – Removal of Meeting - Permanent injunction - Violation of principles of natural justice - Appellant has filed a suit against respondents seeking reliefs - to declare order which was passed by second defendant on basis of alleged meeting of respondents/defendants 2 to 8 of first defendant Trust removing appellant/plaintiff from trusteeship of Vellore Institute of Technology Trust, as null and void, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of principles and natural justice - Permanent injunction restraining respondents 2 to 8, their men, agents and subordinates or any one claiming through them from preventing plaintiff from discharging his functions as Trustee of first defendant - Held, During pendency of a suit, power of Court to appoint a receiver under this Order is subject to provision of Section 94 and is to be exercised for preventing ends of justice from being defeated - Appointment of a receiver is recognised as one of harshest remedies which law provides for enforcement of rights and is allowed only in extreme cases and in circumstances where interests of creditors is exposed to manifest peril - This Court is afraid that case at hand does not satisfy these tests - It would be trite to say that Receiver is not to be appointed unless there is some substantial ground for such interference, such as a well founded apprehension that property in suit will be dissipated or other irreparable mischief may be done unless Court appoints a Receiver - This Court does not see any substantial ground for such an interference to appoint a receiver as no case is made out - There is no imminent danger or apprehension that proposed property would be dissipated or other irreparable mischief might be done - Court view that impugned order passed by trial Court in I.A. does not require interference of this Court - C.M.A. 42 is allowed and C.M.A. No. 43 of 2016 is dismissed
These two memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been directed against the common order dated 23.11.2015 and made in I.A. Nos. 126 and 128 of 2014 in the suit in O.S. No. 67 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore.
2. The petitioner in both the applications is the appellant in these two appeals. The respondents therein are the respondents herein.
3. It is manifested from the records that the appellant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 67 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore as against the respondents herein seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) To declare the order dated 16.07.2014, which was passed by the second defendant on the basis of the alleged meeting of respondents/defendants 2 to 8 of the first defendant Trust removing the appellant/plaintiff from the trusteeship of Vellore Institute of Technology Trust, as null and void, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of principles and natural justice;
(b) Permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 8, their men, agents and subordinates or any one claiming through them from preventing the plaintiff from discharging his functions as Trustee of the first defendant; and
(c) directing the respondents/defendants 2 to 8 jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs as damages for the pain, mental agony and harassment caused to the appellant/plaintiff.
4. Along with the said suit, the appellant being the plaintiff, has filed four interlocutory applications. They are –
(i) I.A. No. 126 of 2014 for injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from preventing him from discharging his duties as trustee of the first respondent/defendant's trust;
(ii) I.A. No. 127 of 2014 to stay the operation of the order of termination of the appellant/plaintiff as trustee of the first respondent/defendant trust;
(iii) I.A. No. 128 of 2014 for appointment of a receiver; and
(iv) I.A. No. 129 of 2014 for a direction to the respondents/defendants to produce the minute books of the Board of Trustees from the year 1984.
5. Those applications were strenuously contested by the respondents/defendants. The learned Principal District Judge, Vellore has consolidated the applications in I.A. No. 126 of 2014 and I.A. No. 128 of 2014 together and after hearing both sides, those two applications were dismissed. Insofar as the remaining two applications viz., I.A. No. 127 of 2014 and I.A. No. 129 of 2014 are concerned, I.A. No. 127 of 2014 was dismissed and the other application in I.A. No. 129 of 2014 was allowed in part directing the production of the minute books from the year 2008 and insofar as the prayer regarding the production of minute books prior to 2008 is concerned, the application was rejected. Impugning the common order passed in the interlocutory application in I.A. No. 126 and 128 of 2014, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, viz., C.M.A. Nos. 42 and 43 of 2016 have been filed before this Court. Insofar as other two applications are concerned, two revision petitions, viz., C.R.P. (PD) No. 369 of 2016 and C.R.P. No. 393 of 2016 were filed.
6. It is significant to note here that the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals viz., C.M.A. Nos. 42 and 43 of 2016 ought to have been clubbed along with the civil revision petitions in C.R.P. (PD) No. 369 of 2016 and C.R.P. No. 393 of 2016 and disposed of in common. Unfortunately, these two appeals were omitted to be consolidated along with the Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. (PD) No. 369 of 2016 and C.R.P. No. 393 of 2016 and those Civil Revision Petitions were already disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 11.05.2016.
7. While dismissing the Interlocutory Applications in I.A. No. 126 and 128 of 2014, the learned District Judge, Vellore has observed as under:-
“The petitioner himself admitted that he had filed a suit before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras along with one person in C.S. No. 518 of 2013 u/s.92 of C.P.C.......”
8. In the above scheme petition, the peti
