Allowed

Sri Divyam Educational and v. The Regional Manager

Madras HC12 Jun 2024WP/2500/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A trust's writ petition sought permission from its bank to operate three current accounts blocked due to an interim injunction obtained by rival trustees in a pending civil suit. After the injunction was vacated and given Clause 15(iv) of the Trust Deed, the court directed the bank to allow the President and Secretary to operate the accounts.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent bank permitted to allow the President and Secretary of the Trust to operate Current Account Nos.62463814897, 62389214770 and 62402630435 as per the Trust Deed, forthwith.

Sri Divyam Educational and Vs The Regional Manager — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2500 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No. 2500 of 2021 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.2819 of 2021

¶8

Sri Divyam Educational & Charitable Trust, Represented by President and Administrative Trustee E.Sivakuru. .... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region No.V, Regional Business Office, No.15, Officer Line, Vellore.

¶11

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dharmapuri Town Branch, Dharmapuri Town and District.

¶12

M.Malini

¶13

K.Murugan

¶14

C.Sugumar

¶15

P.Thamizharasi

¶16

V.G.Balu

¶17

M.Kathar

¶18

Vijiya

¶19

B.Umadevi

¶20

Manivanan

¶21

.... Respondents

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Page 1 of 6

¶24

W.P.No.2500 of 2021

¶25

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to permit the petitioner to operate the 1. Current Account No.62463814897, 2. Current Account No.62389214770 and 3. Current Account No.62402630435.

¶26

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarajan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.L.Ganesh For R4, R5 & R8 : Mrs.V.Srimathi For R3, R6, R7, R9 to R11 : No appearance

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction directing the

¶29

second respondent to permit the petitioner to operate the Current Account Nos.62463814897, 62389214770 and 62402630435 lying in the second respondent Bank.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

¶31

perused the materials available on record.

¶32

The petitioner is the Trust and the respondents 3 to 11 are

¶33

the Trustees. While being so, there was an interse dispute between the petitioner and the trustees. Therefore, some of the private respondents have filed a suit in O.S.No.48 of 2020 for declaration declaring the 8^th

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Page 2 of 6

¶36

W.P.No.2500 of 2021

¶37

respondent as the Chairman-cum-Managing Trustee and to remove the present President and other trustees from the post of managing trustees. Further, it was prayed for declaration declaring that the resolution passed by the Trust as null and void and for permanent injunction.

¶38

Pending suit, the respondents 3 to 11 also filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2020 for interim injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the management of the trust and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court in CMA No.1856 of 2020. Simultaneously, the respondents 3 to 11 had also filed an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to verify the accounts of the trust and file a detailed report. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner also filed a petition before this Court in CRP No.2184 of 2020. This Court, by a common order dated 05.03.2024, allowed the CMA No.1856 of 2020 and dismissed the CRP. No.2184 of 2020. While allowing the CMA No.1856 of 2020, this Court categorically observed that the respondents alleged that the petitioners are making attempt to encumber the trust properties indiscriminately. Therefore, the respondents can very well seek interim relief before a Civil Court. The allegation that the petitioners attempted to alienate the

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Page 3 of 6

¶41

W.P.No.2500 of 2021

¶42

petitioner's properties, has nothing to do with the operation of the accounts by the petitioner. In view of the injunction granted by the Civil Court, the second respondent refused to permit the petitioner to operate the Current Account Nos.62463814897, 62389214770 and 62402630435 lying in the second respondent Bank. In view of vacating the interim injunction, the petitioner is at liberty to operate the Current Account Nos.62463814897, 62389214770 and 62402630435 lying with the second respondent.

¶43

It is also seen from the counter filed by the second respondent that as per Clause 15(iv) of the Trust Deed recites that the bank accounts shall be opened and closed by the President and Secretary jointly in the name of the trust in their own discretion at any time. Therefore, the President and the Secretary had jointly operated the accounts opened in the trust name.

¶44

In view of the above, the second respondent shall permit

¶45

the President and the Secretary of the Trust to operate the Current Account Nos.62463814897, 62389214770 and 62402630435, as per the provisions of the Trust Deed, forthwith.

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

Page 4 of 6

¶48

W.P.No.2500 of 2021

¶49

With the above observation, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 12.06.2024 Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Lpp To

¶50

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region No.V, Regional Business Office, No.15, Officer Line, Vellore.

¶51

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dharmapuri Town Branch, Dharmapuri Town and District.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

Page 5 of 6

¶54

W.P.No.2500 of 2021

¶55

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp

W.P.No. 2500 of 2021

12.06.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

Page 6 of 6

Sri Divyam Educational and v. The Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Divyam Educational and v. The Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ke Housing Pvt., Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (Tangedco)

Periyannan Vs The Chief Manager

M/s.Rockhill Granite and Marble Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of India rep by its

Umar Sakubar Vs the State Rep by

S.Mohanraj Vs The Secretary (Cea)

S.Mallika Vs The Principal Secretary to Government