Partly allowed

Subhash Vasu v. Sree Gurudeva Charitable and Educational Trust

Kerala HC20 Feb 2024OP(C)/1990/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging an interim injunction granted against a defendant/petitioner accused of unlawfully convening a meeting and interfering with a Trust's affairs. The court held that since the petitioner was suspended and did not legally challenge the suspension, they could not resist the injunction. The court modified the injunction to specifically restrain the petitioner from convening board me

What did the court decide?

Injunction sustained but modified to restrain petitioner from convening Director Board meetings and interfering with Trust affairs; liberty granted to file counter-claim challenging suspension.

Subhash Vasu Vs Sree Gurudeva Charitable and… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/1ST PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 1990 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 22/2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA DATED 24.08.2022 FILED AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.1/2022 IN O.S.No.59/2022 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM DATED 18.06.2022

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CR.PETITIONER:

¶8

SUBHASH VASU, AGED 60 YEARS, SON OF VASU, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE, SOUTH MANKUZHI, BHARANICKAVU VILLAGE, PULLIKANAKKU P.O., KAYAMKULAM, PIN – 690537.

¶9

BY ADVS. T.S.HARIKUMAR P.B.SAHASRANAMAN N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)(S-678)

¶10

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 SREE GURUDEVA CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT KATTACHIRA, PALLICKAL P.O, KAYAMKULAM, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY IN CHARGE, VEVELANCHIRA SUKUMARAN, SON OF KOCHUMMINI, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT LEKSHMI PRIYA, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, PIN – 690531.

¶12

2 A.M.GOPALAN @ GOKULAM GOPALAN, CHAIRMAN, SREE GURUDEVA CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, AGED 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOKULAM VILLA, PALOLIPPALAM, PUTHUPATTANAM, NADAKKUTHAZHA, CALICUT, KERALA, PIN – 673105.

¶13

BY ADVS. DINOOP P.D UTHARA A.S K.B.PRADEEP(K/000908/1990) C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)(K/864/1994)

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

JUDGMENT Dated, this the 20^th February, 2024

¶18

The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit, O.S.No.59/2022 pending before the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam and the respondent in Ext.P3 interlocutory application for injunction. He is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order rendered in C.M.A. No.22/2022, which reversed the dismissal of an injunction, vide Ext.P5 order.

¶19

2. Heard Sri.N.Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by T.S.Harikumar, on behalf of the petitioner; Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned

¶20

counsel for the 1^st respondent and

¶21

Sri.C.Unnikrishnan for the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

3. The bare minimum facts, which are required to be taken note of for disposing this Original Petition are as follows:

¶23

The petitioner herein (defendant in the suit)

¶24

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022 - 3 -

¶25

was functioning as the Secretary of the 1^st respondent Trust. Alleging certain actions, which are against the interest of the Trust, the defendant was suspended from the said post by the Governing body in its meeting held on 07.02.2022 and Sri.Velanchira Sukumaran was elected as General Secretary in charge, as could be seen from Ext.R1(f) herein. The suit was instituted when the defendant issued a notice on 24.01.2022, in his capacity as the Secretary, calling for a meeting of the Board of Directors on 21.02.2022, allegedly without the permission of the Chairman and which seeks to induct four Governing body members, without there being any vacancy for the same.

¶26

4. It is the contention of the plaintiff/ respondent that four persons have already been inducted as Governing body members earlier, which according to the defendant is illegal and invalid. It is on that premise that he seeks to

¶27

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022 - 4 -

¶28

induct four more persons. In such circumstances, the suit was instituted seeking an injunction simpliciter, restraining the defendant from convening the Director Board meeting of the plaintiff Trust on 21.02.2022 or on any other date pursuant to the notice dated 24.01.2022. In the same lines, an interim injunction was also sought for vide Ext.P3 application. The learned Munsiff, vide Ext.P5 order, found that the induction of four members into the Governing body of the plaintiff Trust was illegal and invalid, as contended for by the defendant. It was also found that the suspension of the defendant from his office as the General Secretary as per the decision taken in the meeting dated 07.02.2022 was also illegal. Accordingly, the injunction sought for was refused.

¶29

5. In the C.M.A carried therefrom by the

¶30

plaintiff, the learned Additional District

¶31

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022

¶32

- 5 -

¶33

Judge, vide Ext.P11 impugned order, found in

¶34

paragraph no.27 that though there are some irregularities with respect to the induction of members, the present arrangement has to be

¶35

continued in the best interest of the institution, until a final conclusion is reached by the trial court, after taking evidence. The learned Additional District Judge found the

¶36

balance of convenience in favour of the appellants in the C.M.A (plaintiffs in suit), since an injunction, unless granted, will create parallel administration for the plaintiff Trust, which would be detrimental to the interest of the Trust. Accordingly, C.M.A was allowed and injunction was granted, restraining the defendant/respondent (petitioner herein) from entering into the Trust premises and from causing any hardship to the proper functioning of the Trust.

¶37

6. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel on

¶38

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022 - 6 -

¶39

behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court notice a fundamental flaw in the defense case, which would go the root of the matter. It is not disputed that as per the decisions taken in the meeting held on 07.02.2022, the defendant was suspended from the post of General Secretary and another person was elected, instead. The said

¶40

decision has not been subjected to any challenge, whatsoever, by the defendant. It is in answer to the injunction sought for by the plaintiff that the defendant set up a claim/case that suspension was bad for various reasons averred in the counter affidavit, including the illegality/invalidity sought to be attached to

¶41

the induction of the four members and also to the decision taken on 07.02.2022, which suspended him from office. This Court is of the view that said stand of the defendant cannot be countenanced in law. As on the date of institution of the suit, the defendant stands

¶42

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022 - 7 -

¶43

suspended from office and whatever be the illegality sought to be attached to the same, unless such decision, which suspended the defendant, is challenged by a process known to law, the defendant cannot resist the injunction sought for, by merely suggesting illegality to the said decision, which suspended him. If the status of the defendant is to the effect that he

¶44

stands suspended from the post of General Secretary, as on the date of the suit, the relief sought for in Ext.P3 application is only to be allowed. Needless to say that a person suspended from the post of General Secretary is not entitled to convene a meeting of the Director Board. Nor is he entitled to do anything interfering with the affairs of the 1^st plaintiff Trust, unless he establishes that such suspension is bad in law, at least prima facie,

¶45

in a duly constituted proceeding.

¶46

7. In the circumstances, the impugned Ext.P11

¶47

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022

¶48

- 8 -

¶49

order is sustained, though for reasons different altogether. However, the injunction granted requires modification in the estimation of this Court. Rather than preventing the defendant from entering into the premises, what has to be prevented is the convening of the Director Board meeting by the defendant and also from interfering with the affairs of the 1^st plaintiff Trust. The injunction granted accordingly is modified in tune with Ext.P3 application.

¶50

8. In view of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel, this Court observes that it will be open for the petitioner/defendant to seek amendment of the written statement, so as

¶51

to lay a counter claim, challenging the decisions taken on 07.02.2022, as per which the defendant was suspended from office. If such an application is filed, the same will be decided, untrammeled by any of the observations made in the order of the learned Munsiff, the judgment

¶52

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022

¶53

- 9 -

¶54

of the learned Additional District Court, as also, the present judgment rendered in this Original Petition. It is also clarified that if an interim application for injunction is filed by the petitioner herein, after laying a counter claim, the same shall not be treated as hit by the principles of res judicata as applicable to interlocutory applications in the same suit.

¶55

This Original Petition is disposed of, as above.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶58

¶59

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022

¶60

- 10 -

¶61

¶62

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBITP.1 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TRUST DEED NO.160/2008/IV OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, BHARANICKAVU.

¶64

EXHIBIT P.2 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.59 OF 2022 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM.

¶65

EXHIBIT P.3 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A. NO.1 OF 2022 IN O.S.NO.59 OF 2022 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM.

¶66

EXHIBIT P.4 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN O.S. NO.59 OF 2022 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM.

¶67

EXHIBIT P.5 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN O.S.NO.59 OF 2022 OF KAYAMKULAM MUNSIFF COURT DATED 18-062022.

¶68

EXHIBIT P.6 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN C.M.A.NO.22 OF 2022 FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKARA.

¶69

EXHIBIT P.7 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A.NO. 1 OF 2022 IN C.M.A.NO.22 OF 2022 FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKARA.

¶70

EXHIBIT P.8 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2 OF 2022 IN C.M.A.NO.22 OF 2022 FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKARA.

¶71

EXHIBIT P.9 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 IN C.M.A.NO.22 OF 2022 FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKARA.

¶72

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022

¶73

- 11 -

¶74

EXHIBIT P.10 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN F.A.O NO.87 OF 2022 DATED 18-07-2022.

¶75

EXHIBIT P.11 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A.NO.22 OF 2022 FILED BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKARA, DATED 24-08-2022.

¶76

EXHIBIT P.12 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY DATED 07-02-2020.

¶77

EXHIBIT P.13 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY DATED 05-08-2020.

¶78

EXHIBIT P.14 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY DATED 17-04-2021.

¶79

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶80

EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY NOTICE DATED 24-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN SCHEDULING THE DIRECTOR BOARD MEETING ON 21-02-2022.

¶81

EXHIBIT R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE CAVEAT DATED 29-01-2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA.

¶82

EXHIBIT R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02-022022 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN TO THE PETITIONER.

¶83

EXHIBIT R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE 24 HRS URGENT NOTICE DATED 06-02-2022 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN TO ALL THE GOVERNING BODY MEMBERS THROUGH E-MAIL.

¶84

EXHIBIT R1(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE GMAIL PRINTOUT SENDING THE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER.

¶85

EXHIBIT R1(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 07-02-2022.

¶86

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022

¶87

- 12 -

¶88

EXHIBIT R1(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUSPENSION DATED 07-02-2022 AND MEMO OF CHARGES.

¶89

EXHIBIT R1(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07-022022 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-02-2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN OS 59/2022 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM.

¶90

EXHIBIT R1(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27-022022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶91

EXHIBIT R1(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 03-03-2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN THE OP(C) 398 OF 2022.

¶92

EXHIBIT R1(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-032022 IN OP(C) 398 OF 2022.

¶93

EXHIBIT R1(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE IA 1/2022 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KAYAMKULAM PRODUCING B1 TO B9.

¶94

EXHIBIT R1(N) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORGED MINUTES DATED 07-10-2021 FROM PAGE NUMBER 12 TO 27 PRODUCED IN THE COURT BELOW BY THE PETITIONER.

¶95

EXHIBIT R1(O) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORGED MINUTES DATED 02-12-2021 FROM PAGE NUMBER 28 TO 31.

¶96

EXHIBIT R1(P) A TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 2022 - SEPTEMBER 2022.

¶97

EXHIBIT R1(Q) THE SALARY VOUCHERS WITH RESPECT TO ACCOUNT NUMBER 195002 MAINTAINED WITH CSB BANK, KATTANAM.

¶98

EXHIBIT R1(R) A TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY STATEMENT IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER WITH RESPECT TO ACCOUNT NUMBER 195002 MAINTAINED WITH CSB BANK, KATTANAM.

¶99

OP(C) No.1990 of 2022

¶100

- 13 -

¶101

EXHIBIT R1(S) A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE LOAN RAISED BY THE 2ND RESPONDNET CHAIRMAN.

¶102

EXHIBIT R1(T) A TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY TRUST DEED.

¶103

EXHIBIT R1(U) A TRUE COPY OF THE THE ORIGINAL ADVERTISEMENT DATED 31.08.2022 DESHABHAMANI NEWSPAPER.

¶104

EXHIBIT R1(V) A TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHEREIN THE INQUIRY WAS SLATED ON 13-06-2022.

¶105

EXHIBIT R1(W) A TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY PROCEEDING OF THE INQUIRY OFFICER.

¶106

EXHIBIT R1(X) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE INQUIRY OFFICER DATED 11-07-2022.

¶107

EXHIBIT R1(Y) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE INQUIRY OFFICER DATED 22-07-2022.

¶108

EXHIBIT R1(Z) A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT CLEARING THE DEBT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK.

¶109

EXT.R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES ON AGENDA IN RESPECT OF THE MEETING DATED 07.02.2020 IN WHICH MR.SASIDHARAN ACHUTHAN WAS NOMINATED.

¶110

EXT.R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY IN CHARGE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND THE RECEIPT DATED 22.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE VALLIKUNNAM POLICE.

Subhash Vasu v. Sree Gurudeva Charitable and Educational Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Vasu v. Sree Gurudeva Charitable and Educational Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lukose Vs Muthoot Leasing & Finance Ltd.

Earnest Theophine Vs Francy Peter

Association for the Welfare of the Handicapped Vs K.P. Mohammed

Prasanna Kumar Vs Devarajan

Madhusoodanan Pillai Vs Sarojiniamma

Madras Homes Private Limited, Vs K K Muhamed Asharaf