Back
High Court Of Orissa
P. K. MISRA
GADADHAR MISHRA - Appellant
Versus
BIRAJA DEVI - Respondent
Misc. Appeal 89 Of 1996
Decided On : 12/17/1998
INJUNCTION - SOCIETY - ORDER 39, RULES 1 AND 2, C. P. C. - SUMMARY OF THE ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERRED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT: The court discussed the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C.) relating to the grant of injunctions. The court held that before granting an injunction, the court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case in favor of the person seeking injunction, that such person would suffer irreparable loss in case injunction is refused, and that the balance of convenience is in favor of such person.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff No. 10, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, filed a suit against the defendants, claiming that the defendants were not members of the Governing Body of the society and that they had illegally diverted funds from the society's accounts. The plaintiffs also filed three separate petitions under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. for injunction to restrain the defendants from operating the society's bank accounts.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court rejected all the applications for injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to produce prima facie materials in support of their allegations relating to the alleged diversion of funds. The court also found that since the contesting defendants, particularly defendant No. 1, were in charge of plaintiff No. 10 and were operating the different accounts, the balance of convenience was in their favor and no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for grant of injunction? 2. Whether the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs or the defendants?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for grant of injunction, as the documents filed by them indicated that funds of the society had been diverted. The court also held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs, as the defendants were not members of the Governing Body of the society and had no right to operate its bank accounts.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The court also directed that the fixed deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the name of defendant No. 18 should not be withdrawn, that the balance amount lying in deposit in the fixed deposit of Rs. 2,38,250/- in the name of late Prasana Kumar Mohanty could only be withdrawn on furnishing further property security, that the defendants would be free to deal with other amounts received or to be received by them from various sources after filing of the suit, that proper accounts were to be maintained and furnished before the trial Court by 10th of each succeeding month, and that the land in the name of defendant No. 1 and the house standing thereon where the office of plaintiff No. 10 was allegedly established shall not be alienated by any party during the pendency of the suit.
P. K. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 is the appellant in all the three appeals against the common order dated 2-2-1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada, rejecting the three separate petitions for injunction. Since the three appeals are directed against the common order in one suit and common questions of fact and law arise for determination, all the appeals are being disposed of together by the present order.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 10 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act 21 of 1860) having its registered office at Bhanjapur. Late Prasanta Kumar Mohanty was admittedly the President of the said Society till his death on 6-12-1993. It is claimed that after the death of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, plaintiff No. 1 who was the General Secretary, in consultation with plaintiff No. 2 who was the Vice-President, convened a meeting and plaintiff No. 1 was elected as the President and plaintiff No. 3 was elected as the General Secretary. It is further claimed that during the life time of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, huge amounts were diverted from the funds of plaintiff No. 10 to the personal accounts of Prasanta Kumar Mohanty and his relation as well as to the accounts of defendant No. 18, Vinobha Smarak Trust, which had been created by Prasanta Kumar Mohanty and his close relations. It is further claimed in the plaint that defendant No. 1, the widow of late Prasanta Kumar Mohanty, and their sons and other close relations who were posing to be members of the Governing Body had no connection with plaintiff No. 10. On these allegations, the suit was filed claiming the following reliefs :-" (A) A decree be passed declaring the plaintiff and such of Pro forma defendants as found to be genuine members of the Governing Body of the Society of the plaintiff No. 10 and defendants are strangers; (b) The defendant Nos. 1 to 15 be restrained by order of permanent injunction from interfering in the management of the society and not to withdraw any amount and deal with in any manner with the money in the Bank accounts as of Schedule A and not to deal with or spend any incoming money under banner of or in the name of plaintiff No. 10 in any manner and to pass a mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to return the records and assets of the society to the plaintiffs; (c) A declaration be given that the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the FDR Account no. 520604 dated 2-12-1992 with the defendant No. 16, in the name of the defendant No. 18, money belonging to the plaintiff No. 12 and the plaintiff are entitled to it and an injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 10 from withdrawing the same or dealing with the same in any manner; (d) A declaration be given that the sum of Rs. 3,33,210/- now in the Savings Bank Account No. C and I-1487 of the defendant No. 18 with defendant No. 16 is the money of the plaintiff No. 10 and the defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 19 be restrained by an injunction to withdraw any amount from the said Account; (e) A declaration be given that the sum of Rs. 2,38,150/- now in the FDR No. 635004 dated 6-3-1993 are in the name of Late Prasanta Mohanty with defendant No. 16 is the money belonging to the plaintiff No. 10 and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 be restrained by an injunction from withdrawing the same; (f) Cost of the suit be decreed against the defendants; (g) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled in law and equity be passed. "
( 3 ) ALONG with the suit, the plaintiffs filed three separate petitions under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "c. P. C. ") for injunction. Misc. Case No. 69 of 1994 was filed praying for interim injunction restraining, the opposite parties in the said Misc. Case (defendants 1, 4 and 16) from withdrawing any amount from the Fixed Deposit Account No. 635004 from the Bank. Misc. Case No. 70 of 1994 was filed for restraining the opposite parties in the said Misc. Case (defendants 1
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
