Calcutta High Court
Sharmila Shetty & Anr vs Hemendra Barooah Benevolent & Family ... on 11 February, 2016
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
ORDER SHEET
GA 406/2016
CS 175/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SHARMILA SHETTY & ANR.
Versus
HEMENDRA BAROOAH BENEVOLENT & FAMILY TRUST & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON
Date : 11th February, 2016.
Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv.,
Mr.Sakya Sen, Adv.,
Mr.Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Adv.,
for the plaintiff/petitioner.
Mr.S.N. Mookerji, Sr. Adv.,
Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.,
Mr.D.N. Sharma, Adv.,
Mr.Ratnesh Rai, Adv.,
Mr.Anumoy Basu, Adv.,
Mr.Soumabha Ghose, Adv.,
Mr.Kumarjit Banerjee, Adv.,
Mr.Lokenath Chatterjee, Adv., for
the defendant/respondent.
The Court : On the similar and identical statement of facts made in GA 1578 of 2014, the present application has been taken out indicating an additional fact that the three trustees have illegally and wrongfully appointed the sister as trustee to the trust and seeks several reliefs in the instant application. The attention of this Court is drawn to the order dated 15th September, 2014 passed in GA 1578 of 2014 wherein the defendants have been directed to act in terms of the unamended Clause 5(a) of the Deed of Trust and 2 whatever dividend accrued in favour of the plaintiff no.1, since her removal, was directed to be kept in a separate account and such account shall be furnished to the defendants within a week from the creation of such account. It was further indicated therein all steps taken by the trustees shall abide by the result of the said application.
The instant application has been taken out precisely for the reasons that the sister cannot be appointed as a trustee in the manner as has been done by some of the defendants who claim to be the trustees of the said trust.
This Court, therefore, feels there is no scope to pass an interim order on this application as the right of the plaintiff no.1 has been sufficiently protected by an interim order passed on 15th September, 2014. In order to avoid the prolixity of the repetition of the facts in disposing of the applications, this Court feels that it would be proper if this application should also be heard along with GA 1578 of 2014. It is informed by the parties that the affidavits in GA 1578 of 2014 have been exchanged and the said application is running in the list for final disposal.
The defendants are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks from date; reply, if any, shall be filed within a week thereafter. Let this application be listed along with GA 1578 of 2014 after three weeks in the supplementary list as 'Adjourned Motion' at the top.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) sd/