Calcutta High Court
Malvika Foundation And Ors vs Eiilm Foundation And Ors on 5 July, 2017
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
O-111
CS 251 of 2013
GA 2176 of 2013
GA3063 of 2013
GA 3536 of 2013
GA 52 of 2014
GA 2479 of 2014
GA 3807 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
MALVIKA FOUNDATION AND ORS.
Versus
EIILM FOUNDATION AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 5th July, 2017.
Appearance:
Mr.Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr.M.Bose, Adv.
Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr.Deepak Kumar Jain, Adv.
..for the plaintiffs.
Mr.Tilak Bose, Sr. Adv.
..for the respondent no.2
Mr.Debajyoti Datta, Adv.
Mrs.Vijaya Bhatia,Adv.
Mr.Ganesh Prasad Shaw, Adv.
..for the respondent nos.1, 4 & 5.
Mr.Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.
Ms.Priyanka Dhar, Adv.
..for the respondent no.7.
Mr. R.L.Mitra, Adv.
..for the respondent no.6.
The Court: On 5th August, 2013 a three-member Committee was constituted to run the administration of the institute. There are some 2 allegations against the Supervisor. The plaintiffs submit that the Supervisor is not strong enough to deal with the matters of importance and may concede to the demand of the defendants although no impropriety as such is alleged against Professor Sanyal. Without going into the merits of the matter Professor D.K.Sanyal, the then Acting Director, who was discharging the function as Supervisor is honourably discharged and is substituted by Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas (Retired). The Supervisor shall be entitled to a remuneration of Rs.1700/- per month to be paid out of the moneys of the institute. The Supervisor would have the veto power and his decision shall be final and binding upon the parties.
Since a financial impropriety is alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs and there cannot be any doubt that the institute was cash rich and is having valuable immovable proprieties, M/s. RAY & RAY, a firm of auditors of G.P. Block, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Bidhannagar, West Bengal 700091, is appointed as an auditor to audit the accounts of the institute, Eastern Institute For Integrated Learning in Management (EIILM) for the financial year 2010-2011 till date and file an audited accounts with the newly constituted committee. The audit shall be done under the supervision of the senior partner of RAY & RAY. The costs, charges and expenses of the auditor shall be borne by the plaintiffs. The newly constituted committee shall make over and allow 3 inspection of the documents by the auditor in order to carry out directions of this Court.
Mr.Tilak Bose, learned senior advocate representing the defendant no.2 submits that all accounts of the institute were being handled by the plaintiffs till 31st March, 2013 and such documents may be available with the plaintiffs which, however, is not accepted by the plaintiffs.
Be that as it may, the auditor shall proceed with the audit on the basis of the available record and may call for information which the auditor may feel necessary from the parties. The order of injunction passed on 26th July 2013 as modified on 5th August 2013 shall continue till the disposal of the suit. The parties shall discover documents within six weeks from date and offer inspection forthwith thereafter. The parties shall be at liberty to mention for early disposal of the suit before the appropriate bench. The special officer stands discharged.
GA 2176 of 2013, GA3063 of 2013, GA 3536 of 2013, GA 52 of 2014, GA 2479 of 2014 and GA 3807 of 2014 stand disposed of.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) dg2