Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajam Sethuraman vs S.R. Trust on 25 November, 2014
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton Fali Nariman
1
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.8 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9688/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/02/2012
in CRP No. 5222/2011 passed by the High Court Of Madras)
RAJAM SETHURAMAN AND ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
S.R. TRUST AND ORS Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and modification of
court's order and permission and vacating stay/directions and
interim relief and office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 9847/2012
(With appln.(s) for vacating stay/directions and appln.(s) for
exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for modification of
court's order and Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 9831/2013
(With Interim Relief and Office Report)
Date : 25/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Subramanian,Sr.Adv.
In SC 9688/12 Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv.
In SC 9847/12 Mr. A.V. Palli,Adv.
Mrs. Rekha Palli,Adv.
In SC 9831/13 Ms. V. Mohana,Adv.
& Respt. In
SC 9688/12
For Respondent(s)
Signature Not Verified
Mr. R. Balasubramanian,Sr.adv.
Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv.
Digitally signed by
Madhu Bala
Date: 2014.11.28
14:07:19 IST
Reason: Mr. B. Karunakaran,Adv.
Mr. V. Ramasubramanian,Adv.
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In SLP(C) NO. 9688 AND 9847 OF 2012 The order under challenge before the High Court was an interim order of injunction passed by the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S. No.9503 of 2011. By the impugned order the High Court after an elaborate recital of the facts of the case and the contentions advanced dismissed the challenge made under Article 227 of the Constitution by requiring the parties to move the learned Trial Court. No opinion on merits was expressed by the High Court. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that the said order of the High Court would not call for any interference. Instead, parties should be left with the option to raise all contentions before the learned Trial Court. We also direct that until the injunction matter is re-heard and disposed of by the learned Trial Court, the present position with regard to management of the Trust will continue.
3
Parties have agreed that O.S. No. 9503 of 2011 presently pending before the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, may be transferred to the Court of the Principal Judge, Madurai, and heard along with O.S. No.14 of 2011 and O.S. No. 224 of 2010. We order accordingly. We also direct the learned Trial Court to hear and dispose of the injunction matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The special leave petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
SLP(C)No. 9831 of 2013
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(MADHU BALA) (VINOD LAKHINA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order in C.A. No.10559/2014 (@SLP(C)No.9831 of 2013) is placed on the file) 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10559 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9831 of 2013] S. RAMESH …APPELLANT VERSUS S.R. TRUST MEENAKSHI MISSION HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS. …RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant seeks to challenge an order dated 17th October, 2012 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court by which O.S. No.320 of 2011 filed by the appellant – S. Ramesh before the First Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai has been struck off and a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) has been imposed. The basis on which the aforesaid order of the High Court was rendered is that O.S. No.320 of 2011 was filed by the appellant by suppressing the fact that the appellant as plaintiff had 2 earlier instituted another suit seeking the same relief before the Court of Principal District Judge, Madurai which fact was suppressed/not disclosed in the plaint filed in O.S. No.320 of 2011.
3. A brief narration of the relevant facts would be required.
4. The appellant, as plaintiff, had instituted O.S. No.14 of 2011 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Madurai seeking the relief of declaration that the clause inserted in the supplementary trust deed dated 22.07.2005 which provides that the appointment and removal of trustees is to be done by the Founder of the Trust, as null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the trustees from removing the plaintiff as trustee. It must be specifically noticed at this stage that the said suit was filed on 4th February, 2011.
5. Thereafter, the appellant instituted another suit (unnumbered, but registered as Serial No.3626 to 3629 dated 25th February, 2011 in CR 19 Register Entry in the 3 Court of the Principal District Judge, Madurai) seeking a decree declaring the Board Meeting held on 17th February, 2011 at Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre and the removal of the plaintiff – appellant herein – as a trustee and Director on the basis of the said meeting as null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff from discharging his duties in the defendant No.1 – trust as a trustee. For convenience, O.S. No. 14 of 2011 may be referred to as the First Suit; the unnumbered suit as the Second Suit and O.S. No.320 of 2011 as the Third Suit.
6. It appears that the second suit was returned by the Principal District Judge on the ground that the relief sought in the second suit is identical with those of the first suit and, therefore, the appellant – plaintiff should seek his remedies in the first suit i.e. O.S. No.14 of 2011.
4
7. Thereafter, the appellant instituted O.S. No.320 of 2011 (the third suit) seeking similar reliefs as sought in the second suit, details of which have been noted above. On the ground that in the plaint filed in O.S. No.320 of 2011 there was no mention of the filing of the second suit by the plaintiff, the order of the High Court has been rendered striking off the aforesaid O.S. No. 320 of 2011 primarily on the ground of suppression of the said fact. It may be noticed herein that the High Court was in seisin of the proceedings in O.S. No.320 of 2011 on the basis of an order dated 19.03.2012 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.2941 of 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9563 of 2012] which pertained to the correctness of the order of injunction passed in the third suit. Specifically, the order dated 19.03.2012 had directed that the question whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable may be examined by the High Court but only for the limited purposes of determining whether the plaintiffs had a 5 prima facie case and whether the plaintiffs had suppressed any material facts or information from the court, as alleged by the defendants-respondents.
8. It is not disputed before us that the second suit filed by the appellant was returned by the trial Court on the ground that the reliefs sought therein are identical with those in O.S. No.14 of 2011. Reading the reliefs sought in the two suits i.e. the first and the second suit as set out in the plaints filed, the aforesaid conclusion of the trial Court appears to be plainly incorrect. No order of the learned Principal District Judge in the second suit, as stated/claimed, has been brought on record. As already noticed, the reasons for return of the second suit were ex facie incorrect. Moreover, the High Court while rendering the impugned order was in seisin of the matter on the basis of a remand made by this Court for disposal of the injunction matter on merits. The scope of consideration of the question of maintainability of O.S. No.320 of 2011 was 6 limited and circumscribed by the order of this Court dated 19.03.2012. The High Court, therefore, ought not to have proceeded to determine the maintainability of the suit and to pass the impugned order striking off the suit. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and restore O.S. No. 320 of 2011 to file, which will now be adjudicated on merits. The cost amount which is stated to have been deposited, be returned to the appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was an order of injunction in favour of the appellant passed by the learned trial court which may now be revived as the suit has been restored to file. In two other Special Leave Petitions being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9688 of 2012 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9847 of 2012, we have, by order passed today i.e. 25th November, 2014, remanded the connected suits being O.S. No.14 of 2011 and O.S. No.224 7 of 2010 to the learned trial court for decision on the entitlement of the parties to injunction. We, therefore, direct that in the present case also the learned trial court will also consider afresh the entitlement of the plaintiff – appellant to an order of injunction and until the same is so decided, the earlier order passed shall remain in force.
10. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
………………………………………………………,J.
[RANJAN GOGOI] ………………………………………………………,J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 25, 2014