Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Malvika Foundation & Ors vs Eiilm Foundation & Ors on 5 September, 2016

Author: Sanjib Banerjee

Bench: Sanjib Banerjee

ORDER SHEET                                              O-7

                        GA No. 2176 of 2013
                        GA No. 3063 of 2013
                        GA No. 3536 of 2013
                        GA No. 52 of 2014
                        GA No. 3807 of 2014
                          CS No. 251 of 2013
                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                          ORIGINAL SIDE

                               MALVIKA FOUNDATION & ORS.
                                        Versus
                               EIILM FOUNDATION & ORS.

 BEFORE:

 The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE

Date : 5th September, 2016.

Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv.

Mr. Deepak Jain, Adv.

...for the plaintiffs Mr. Pradip Kr. Ghosh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Debjyoti Dutta, Adv.

Mr. Ganesh P. Shaw, Adv.

Ms. Vijaya Bhatia, Adv.

...for defendant nos. 1,4 & 5 Mr. Tilok Kr. Bose, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Debjyoti Dutta, Adv.

Ms. Vijaya Bhatia, Adv.

...for defendant no. 2 Mr. R.L. Mitra, Adv.

...appears Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Ms. Priyanka Dhar, Advs.

...appears 2 The Court : The matter has been substantially heard. The essence of the plaintiffs' submission is that an educational institute set up by the first plaintiff trust has been effectively hijacked by the first defendant trust.

The defence of the first and second principal defendants is that the family or persons in control of the first plaintiff trust had devised the entire scheme to ostensibly delink the institute from the first plaintiff trust and park it with the first defendant trust to facilitate the first defendant trust to set up a private university in this State.

Several orders have been passed on the applications in the suit and it transpires that there is a three-member committee which is overseeing the operations at the EIILM Institute at its three branches in the city. The committee should file a report signed by all the members thereof. If the members of the committee cannot agree on every aspect, separate reports be filed by such members. The Special Officer appointed by an order dated October 3, 2013 appears to have had a limited brief. However, since the parties submit that the Special Officer has continued, an independent report should also be filed by the Special Officer.

Advocates for the first and the second defendants should forward copies of all applications and connected papers and a bunch of all orders passed in this suit to the office of Learned Advocate-General with 3 the intimation that the State should be represented in this matter as the State is proposed to be added as a party to the instant suit.

The reports called for by this order should be filed within a week from date.

Let all the pending petitions appear on September 19, 2016.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) TR/