Court-appointed administrative supervision of a trust does not extinguish the residual policy-making authority of trustees. Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings mandated by national labor legislation operate independently of court-ordered management schemes and cannot be precluded by civil injunctions targeting institutional governance.

Judgment :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Both the appeals, being directed against different parts of the self-same order, are taken up for hearing together. For the sake of convenience, while referring to the parties as “appellants” and “respondents”, we shall go by the array of parties in FMA 365 of 2026.

2. FMA 365 of 2026 has been preferred against the portion of Order No. 41 dated February 11, 2026 passed in Title Suit No. 64 of 2025, whereby the injunction application filed by the defendants/respondent nos. 1-5 was partially allowed.

3. The said suit has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants, who are co-trustees (along with respondent nos. 1-5) of the proforma respondent No. 6-Trust, namely, Gayatri Chetna Foundation, for the following reliefs:

a) Decree that the petitioners and the defendants being the trustees of the Gayatri Chetna Foundation i.e., proforma defendant herein, are bound to act in pursuance of the objectives of the said Trust deed dated 4th December 2018, modified by the Trust Deed dated 15^th January 2020;

b) Decree by way of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from doing any act contrary to the interest of the Gayatri Chetna Foundation and further not to cause any obstruction in furtherance of the objective of the proforma defendant in pursuing, developing the Academic Institute run under the name and style of Gayatri Chetna Trust at Sonarpur campus, by the petitioners;

c) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and/or their men/agents/assigns to deal with the assets and funds whether movable or immovable, of the proforma defendants contrary to the provisions of the Trust deed;

d) An order of injunction restraining the defendants along with their men and agents from interfering with the day to day running of the Academic Institute being the “Gayatri Chetna Foundation”;

e) Decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to cooperate with the petitioners by executing cheques, etc for disbursing the examination fees and semester charges in favour of MAKAUT, enabling the students of the said „Academic Institute‟ to sit for their ensuing semester examinations and also to disburse the monthly amount required for day to day running of the said Academic Institute as morefully stated in Paragraph No. 14 above;

f) Decree for framing of a scheme for the future and perpetual functioning and management of the Defendant No. 1, Trust;

g) Decree ceasing the term of Trusteeship of the defendant Nos. 2-5 and removing them from the Trust Mandal (Board of the Trustees);

h) Injunction;

i) Ad-interim injunction in terms of the prayers above;

j) Receiver;

k) Costs;

l) Any other order or orders and/or direction and/or directions as thus Learned Court may deem fit and proper.

4. In connection with the said suit, the plaintiffs/appellants filed an application for temporary injunction, which was disposed of by the Trial Court vide order dated June 25, 2025, thereby inter alia framing a scheme with regard to the functioning of the educational institution (synonymous with the Trust) run by the said Trust. The salient features of the said scheme are set out below:

“1. Names of two Advocates from each side are to be provided for appointment as Joint Special Officer, who will monitor the affairs of the educational institution in terms of the scheme