Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1032 (MAD)

C. Padmavathi v. K. T. Anbalagan

2013-02-19

M.M.SUNDRESH, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. The appellant/ninth defendant, who is the applicant in Application Nos.2162 and 379 of 2012, being aggrieved against the common order passed by the learned single Judge dated 08.11.2012 in dismissing those applications, has filed these Original Side Appeals. 2. Jai Bharath Charitable Trust was constituted by a Deed of Trust dated 28.12.1994. Alleging huge misappropriation and mal-administration, the plaintiffs filed a suit in C.S.No.294 of 2003 for a declaration and also for framing a Scheme to administer the Trust and render accounts under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. As the Administrator appointed by this Court resigned, by a subsequent order dated 24.10.2003 the present Administrator was appointed. The present Administrator is a retired Judge of the Honourable High Court whose honesty and integrity is rather well known. However, the defendants took the order dated 24.06.2003 on appeal. In O.S.A.Nos.235, 237 and 294 of 2003, a Division Bench of this Court modified the order of the learned single Judge. The Administrator took charge on 22.12.2003. The plaintiffs approached the Apex Court challenging the order of the Division Bench of this Court. The Honourable Apex Court restored the order passed by the learned single Judge by setting aside the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court. One of the defendants viz., Shri Jayamohan was punished for contempt on an application filed by the learned Administrator in Cont.P.No.818 of 2004. The learned Administrator was also granted protection by the order of this Court as he and his family were facing life threat. By an order dated 29.03.2011, the appellant and the eighth defendant in the suit were impleaded as defendants 9 and 8 respectively. 4. During the interregnum, the learned Administrator made remarkable improvement in the College belonging to the Trust. He brought the ‘Nil’ balance prior to his taking over to Rs.6 crores available in the bank account. It is also on record that in the year 2003, even the employees could not be paid, which situation was overturned by the alertness and the commendable work undertaken by the learned Administrator. He also brought about a total transparency in the administration of the College. 5. At this juncture, a spate of applications have been filed by the appellant and defendants 2 and 7. He also brought about a total transparency in the administration of the College. 5. At this juncture, a spate of applications have been filed by the appellant and defendants 2 and 7. A.No.2162 of 2012 was filed by the appellant being a life Trustee to permit her to visit the Educational Institution of the Trust along with her counsel. Incidentally her husband is also a lawyer, against whom the learned Administrator has made several references in his memo before this Court. A.No.379 of 2012 was filed by the appellant seeking to restrain the learned Administrator from allowing the Trustees from the plaintiff side from signing the cheques. 6. The learned Administrator, after taking over the administration of the Trust, in order to have transparency and to ensure the safety, authorised two persons from the sides of the plaintiffs and defendants to sign the cheques. Except one Shri Dhandayuthapani, all other defendants refused to co-operate. Subsequently, the said Dhandayuthapani also for the reasons known to him declined to sign the cheques. The learned Administrator issued an authorisation letter to the Bank mentioning the cheque numbers, drawer's name and the amount of cheque for honouring them. Only in those cheques, which were crossed, the persons named are made to sign. The drawer cannot encash the cheque without the authorisation given to the bank. Hence, the nominated two trustees, who had been authorised, have no powers to deal with them as they like. In other words, the entire powers are vested and continued to be vested with the learned Administrator. As the defendants refused to co-operate and in view of the specific refusal of Shri Dhandayuthapani one more person from the plaintiffs side was made to sign the cheque in his place. 7. Before the learned single Judge, the appellant had contended that the plaintiffs are interfering with the affairs of the management with the tacit approval of the learned Administrator. It is also contended that there are instances of mismanagement. It is seen that in the applications filed and also in the communication sent by the appellant, certain unwanted and reckless remarks have been made against him. The learned Administrator has also filed a detailed memo bringing to the notice of the learned single Judge about the conduct and behaviour of the appellant and her husband, who is said to be the man behind her. The plaintiffs/respondents also filed a counter affidavit. The learned Administrator has also filed a detailed memo bringing to the notice of the learned single Judge about the conduct and behaviour of the appellant and her husband, who is said to be the man behind her. The plaintiffs/respondents also filed a counter affidavit. By a detailed order, the learned single Judge dismissed all the applications filed by the defendants, including the two applications, which were the subject matter of these appeals filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved against the same, the present appeals have been filed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while fairly acknowledging the integrity of the learned Administrator, has submitted that no prejudice will be caused by allowing the applications, particularly, when the appellant is a life Trustee, who has got an interest in the administration. She cannot be prevented from taking part in the day today administration. By the arrangements made by the learned Administrator only, the plaintiffs side was allowed to participate in the administration as against the defendants side. Therefore, either the learned Administrator himself should sign the cheques or he should permit the defendants side to do the said act along with the plaintiffs side. The very same sentiment has been echoed by the learned counsels appearing for the other defendants. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs side would vehemently contend that there are no bona fides in the applications filed. It is the learned Administrator, who is in charge. There is no factual basis in the allegations made. None of the plaintiffs' side trustees are taking part except two of them signing the cheques under the control of the learned Administrator. There is absolute transparency in the transactions. Therefore, the applications will have to be dismissed. 10. The learned Administrator has filed a memo dated 28.01.2013 covering both the applications reiterating the very same facts placed before the learned single Judge. In the said memo, the learned Administrator put forth certain painful facts. 11. We have also perused the common memo filed by the learned Administrator. 12. The learned Administrator has clearly stated that it is the appellant’s husband, who is behind her. The appellant’s husband sought several favours from the learned Administrator who, due to his integrity and uprightness, rejected the same. He tried to induct his own men, interfered with the administration and even attempted to threaten the learned Administrator. 12. The learned Administrator has clearly stated that it is the appellant’s husband, who is behind her. The appellant’s husband sought several favours from the learned Administrator who, due to his integrity and uprightness, rejected the same. He tried to induct his own men, interfered with the administration and even attempted to threaten the learned Administrator. A police complaint was given, which was also closed as it was thought not to precipitate the issue any further. The letters sent by the appellant to the learned Administrator are also in bad taste. The appellant’s husband also wrote to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu stating that he has only assisted his wife/appellant. The learned Administrator has observed that except the appellant’s husband, no other person had ever approached him for any obligation. The records also would show that the appellant has been taking different stands. At one point, she has appreciated the learned Administrator for the commendable work he has been doing and on the other hand, baseless allegations were made. 13. We are quite aware of the role of the Court in dealing with a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. What is important is the proper administration of the Trust and not the personal interest of the parties. We do not want to dwell much into the facts involved, as they are very disturbing. Reckless and baseless allegations have been made against the learned Administrator, who does not need any certification for his honesty and integrity from any quarter. There is absolutely no material to substantiate the allegation made against him. It is quite apparent that these allegations are scurrilous, motivated, calculated and deliberated as a design to make the learned Administrator to demit his office. 14. It is very clear that the learned Administrator is the man in-charge. It is he, who runs the Institution. The results achieved amply demonstrate the excellent performance of the learned Administrator. The common memo filed clearly exhibits the extent of transparency involved. Each and every income has been accounted and the transactions have been made through Banks. Periodical reports are also being filed before the Court i.e., once in three months. The Honourable Administrator has made the Trustees to sign for the purpose of transparency and none else. The common memo filed clearly exhibits the extent of transparency involved. Each and every income has been accounted and the transactions have been made through Banks. Periodical reports are also being filed before the Court i.e., once in three months. The Honourable Administrator has made the Trustees to sign for the purpose of transparency and none else. The mere statement made by the learned counsels appearing for the appellant and other respondents supporting the defendants side that either one of them from each side should allow them to sign or both should not sign itself would be sufficient enough to dismiss these appeals, as what is important is the interest of Trust. The learned Administrator does not have any difficulty in running the Trust. We also do not find anything to disregard the common memo filed by the learned Administrator. The suit has been filed in the year 2003. Instead of co-operating with the learned single Judge and taking steps to expedite the suit, the appellant has come forward to file these applications. The Trust being run efficiently after the taking over of its administration by the learned Administrator, we do not wish to interfere with the same, as such interference in all probability would cause only damage rather than any good. We also do not wish to go much into certain statements made by the learned counsels appearing for the other defendants as their submissions are beyond the scope of these appeals. 15. Therefore, considering the above-said facts, we do not find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. However, considering the fact that the suit is pending from the year 2003 onwards, we request the learned single Judge dealing with the final hearing of the suits to take up the suit and dispose of the same expeditiously. The parties are also directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the suit. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.