Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. SUNDRESH, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
C. Padmavathi - Appellant
Versus
K.T. Anbalagan & Others - Respondents
Original Side Appeal No. 150 of 2017 & C.M.P. Nos. 10680, 10681 & 1361 to 1364 of 2017
Decided On : 03-06-2019
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Sections 92 and 92(1) - Original Side Rules - Order XXXVI - Rule I - Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Imparting of education through establishment of institutions - Supplemental Trust Deed - Public Charitable Trust under name and style of Charitable Trust was established way back in year - Prime object of Trust is imparting of education through establishment of institutions - A Supplemental Trust Deed was executed by which additional Life Trustees were added and inducted to Trust - A suit was filed in inter alia making certain allegations of misfeasance and malfeasance by Managing Trustee and Chairman of Trust in collusion with others - Appellant herein was impleaded as defendant in year - Court appointed an Administrator who was a retired Judge of this Court - Administrator was replaced by another retired Judge of this Court - Appellant also made certain allegations against Managing Trustee and others - As of now Managing Trustees who have been arrayed as defendant and defendant respondent are no more - Defendant is a person hailing from a respectable family dedicated to social service and more particularly for providing and imparting education to deserving people in and around locality where educational institution is situated at - In fact husband of defendant Life Trustee by name B.Sc B.L Advocate High Court Madras is a retired Scientist of reputed and well renowned King Institute of Preventive Medicine at Chennai and he had been rendering various assistance on various occasions for upliftment of educational institutions running under control of defendant Trust by securing an able and efficient Principal by name Prof from Chemical Engineering Department of IIT Chennai by facilitating selection process in educational institutions of defendant Trust by inviting team of Professors of IIT and Anna University Chennai and by providing selection process of by providing guidelines for such selection and method to be adopted by educational institutions by securing efficient Professors for Science subjects such as Chemistry and Physics by providing norms and guidelines to be maintained and adopted with help of Professors from IIT and Anna University Chennai and by providing opportunities to have corroboration from foreign Universities and by handing administrative internal works between educational institutions of defendant Trust and Madras University and also Anna University to facilitate better administration of educational institutions of defendant Trust - Held, Court are quite aware of role of Court in dealing with a suit under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code - What is important is proper administration of Trust and not personal interest of parties - Court do not want to dwell much into facts involved as they are very disturbing - Reckless and baseless allegations have been made against Administrator who does not need any certification for his honesty and integrity from any quarter - Court find that appellant changed track to make sure that her husband gets entry into Trust - It is a case of sour grapes - As noted by Division Bench referred supra there is no material to substantiate allegations made by appellant - Single Judge rightly felt that there is no need to go through full fledged trial - Earlier order passed by single Judge in holding that a draft scheme has to be furnished to parties has become final - A scheme decree cannot be termed as a compromise nor it facilitate any one of trustees by conferring benefit - There is also no need to furnish copy of remarks of Administrator - It is for appellant to make out grievance from point of view of public interest over scheme decree - Merely making an allegation per se would not be sufficient to set aside scheme decree on premise that a trial should have been conducted notwithstanding earlier stand that it was not so required - However Court do find that clause providing an arbitration to resolve dispute inter se parties or within Trust cannot be sustained in eye of law - Admittedly Trust is a public and charitable one - Court has to act as a parens patriae - Public interest interest of Trust and Trustees are relevant factors to be taken into consideration by Court - Such an exercise cannot be relegated to an Arbitrator - An arbitration is between two parties having competing interest - Therefore scheme decree passed requires interference - Clause XVI which deals with arbitration also makes as sole arbitrator being Senior Life Trustee which also cannot be countenanced - He himself being part of Board of Trustees cannot act as an Arbitrator what if allegations are against him? Similarly there is no need to approach this Court for appointment of Arbitrator after his demise in event of no consensus among trustees - Indian Trusts Act 1882 in fact provides an excellent instance of how arbitration is excluded by necessary implication - It is important to bear in mind fact that statute considered as whole must lead necessarily to a conclusion that disputes which arise under it cannot be subject matter of arbitration - Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Sundresh, J.
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal are filed under Order XXXVI Rule I of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2017 passed in C.S.No.294 of 2003.)
1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge in his approval of the draft scheme decree after due consultation with the learned Administrator, who was a Judge of this Court having served with the distinction.
2. A Public Charitable Trust under the name and style of Jai Bharath Charitable Trust was established way back in the year 1994 (28.12.1994). The prime object of the Trust is imparting of education through the establishment of institutions. A Supplemental Trust Deed was executed on 31.08.1995, by which, additional Life Trustees were added and inducted to the Trust.
3. A suit was filed in C.S.No.294 of 2003 inter alia making certain allegations of misfeasance and malfeasance by the Managing Trustee and the Chairman of the Trust in collusion with the others. The appellant herein was impleaded as the defendant in the year 2011.
4. The Court appointed an Administrator, who was a retired Judge of this Court. The learned Administrator was replaced by another retired Judge of this Court.
5. The appellant also made certain allegations against the Managing Trustee and others. As of now, the Managing Trustees, who have been arrayed as defendant No.3 and defendant No.6-respondent No.10 are no more.
6. An application was filed in Application No.8150 of 2014 by the plaintiffs seeking certified copies of the statement of the accounts. By a counter affidavit, it was opposed by the appellant through the following statements.
“4...... There is no reason whatsoever for the plaintiffs to fail to submit the draft scheme decree when there is a direction to that effect and in fact except the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant the other defendants have already filed draft scheme decree to enable the court to frame a scheme decree........
6.........But for reasons stated above, namely that a draft scheme decree has already been directed to be framed and submitted before the Court, it is no longer the requirement for the plaintiffs to apply and get a copy or to have a direction to the Bank to submit a certified copy of the bank account to the court.......”
7. Thus, the appellant specifically did not want further trial to go on in view of the earlier order passed by the learned single Judge, which has become final interse parties to proceed with the draft scheme decree, giving them liberty to give their respective suggestions. Accordingly, the appellant has also given her suggestion. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder.
“(d)The 9th defendant is a person hailing from a respectable family, dedicated to social service and more particularly for providing and imparting education to deserving people in and around the locality where the educational institution is situated at Vaniyambadi. In fact, the husband of the 9th defendant Life Trustee by name Mr. A. Ekambaram, B.Sc., B.L., Advocate, High Court, Madras is a retired Scientist of the reputed and well renowned King Institute of Preventive Medicine at Chennai and he had been rendering various assistance on various occasions for the upliftment of the educational institutions running under the control of the 1st defendant Trust by securing an able and efficient Principal by name Prof. Y.G.P. Varma from Chemical Engineering Department of IIT, Chennai, by facilitating the selection process in the educational institutions of the 1st defendant Trust by inviting team of Professors of IIT and Anna University, Chennai and by providing the selection process of by providing guidelines for such selection and method to be adopted by the educational institutions by securing efficient Professors for Science subjects such as Chemistry and Physics, by providing norms and guidelines to be maintained and adopted with the help of Professors from IIT and Anna
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
