Madras High Court
Shanmuga Dayanandam vs Vallal P.Subramania Udayar Charitable ... on 19 January, 2018
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :11.01.2018
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 19.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.312 of 2014
Shanmuga Dayanandam
Trustee Vallal P.Subramania Udyar
Charitable Trusts, (now removed)
C451 Kandasami Salai,
Periyar Nagar, Chennai 600 082. ... Plaintiff
Vs
1. Vallal P.Subramania Udayar Charitable Trust,
Rep. By Board of Trustees,
New No.30, Old No.26,
Kuyavar Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
2. Dr.Sema Narayanan
Trustee
Vallal P.Subramania Udayar Charitable Trust,
New No.30, Old No.26,
Kuyavar Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
3. K.Chandrasekaran
Trustee
Vallal P.Subramania Udayar Charitable Trust,
New No.30, Old No.26,
Kuyavar Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
4. Dr.N.Satchidhanandam
Trustee
Vallal P.Subramania Udayar Charitable Trust,
New No.30, Old No.26,
Kuyavar Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
5. Mrs.P.S.Vijayalakshmi
Trustee
Vallal P.Subramania Udayar Charitable Trust,
New No.30, Old No.26,
Kuyavar Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. ... Defendants
Prayer : Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the following judgment and decree:-
(a) declare the resolution dated 28.09.2013 passed by defendants 1 and 3 to 5 wherein by plaintiff was removed from the responsibility of trusteeship of 1st defendant trust as illegal and ultravires and hence non-est in law.
(b) Mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 3 to 5 to permit the plaintiff to discharge his legal duties as trustee of Vallal P.Subramania Udayar Charitable Trust the 1st defendant
(c)award costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Ravi
For Defendants : Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the suit is the resolution of the Board of Trustees of the first defendant Trust dated 28.09.2013.
2. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:
The first defendant is a Public Charitable Trust, created by one P.Subramania Udayar, by his last Will and testament dated 07.07.1931. The said Will was probated on 02.04.1932. While directing certain public charities to be performed, the testator had appointed five persons as executors of the Will and as trustees of the proposed trust. As per the Will the survivors have the power to appoint or nominate successor trustees and the maximum number of trustees was fixed at five. After the grant of probate, trustees are being nominated and the Trust is functioning and carrying out the objects as laid down under the Will of late Subramania Udayar dated 07.07.1931. The plaintiff claims that he was appointed as a trustee of the trust by a resolution of the Board of Trustees dated 07.04.2005.
3. According to the plaintiff, he has been discharging his duties as a trustee ever-since his appointment. The plaintiff would claim that defendants 3 to 5, who are appointed as trustees started acting against the welfare of the Trust. It is claimed that defendants 3 to 5, with a personal motive to encourage a private contractor of their own choice, decided to demolish the existing building in which the office of the trust was functioning and put up a new construction through a contractor of their choice. Since, defendants 2 to 5 found that the plaintiff will be a stumbling block to achieve their object of exploiting the funds of the Trust, they have decided to get rid of the plaintiff by hook or crook. It is also claimed that defendants 3 to 5 convened a meeting on 28.09.2013, without intimating the agenda of the meeting either to the plaintiff or the second defendant, who is the senior trustee, and passed a resolution removing the plaintiff as a trustee. It is claimed that the resolution removing the plaintiff as a trustee was intimated to the plaintiff subsequently. The plaintiff would claim that removal of a trustee of a Public Charitable Trust cannot be done by a mere resolution of majority of the trustees. It should be by a way of a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Claiming that the resolution dated 28.09.2013 is non-est in law, the plaintiff had issued a notice on 01.10.2013, defendants 3 to 5 questioning their authority to remove the plaintiff as trustee of the first defendant Trust. He also sought for withdrawal of the resolution dated 28.09.2013. The defendants 3 to 5 had sent a reply dated 16.10.2013, in and by which they rejected the claim of the plaintiff and had stood by the resolution, In the said reply, while admitting that no show cause notice was issued for the removal of the plaintiff, the defendants 3 to 5 had claimed that there was no duty cast on them to follow the procedure for removal of the trustee. It is also claimed that in a subsequent meeting held on 11.10.2013, the second defendant was prevented from participating. The attempt made by the second defendant to participate in the meeting with the aid of police was also thwarted by the defendants 3 to 5.
4. On the above contentions, the plaintiff would seek a declaration of the resolution dated 28.09.2013, passed by the defendants 3 to 5 removing the plaintiff in the trusteeship of the first defendant Trust, as illegal and ultra vires and hence non-est in law and mandatory injunction is also sought for directing defendants 1 and 3 to 5 to permit the plaintiff to discharge the legal duties as a trustee of the first defendant Trust.
5. The second defendant remained ex-parte. Defendants 1 and 3 to 5 filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff has no civil right to maintain the suit. According to them, the suit is barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is claimed that since there are no bye-laws for regulation and management of the Trust, it is the view of the majority that will prevail. It is also claimed that the Trust is run by moral code and convention hitherto followed and practised by the erstwhile Trustees, who are constituted as the Board of Trustees of the first defendant Trust. All the operations of the Trust, including financial transactions are carried out based upon the Resolutions passed by majority of the Board of Trustees in the Board meetings of the Trust
6. According to the defendants, the building at No.30 Potters Street, Saidapet, Chennai, in which Trust office was functioning had become dilapidated and they have decided to demolish the building and put up a new construction with a view to augment with the income of the Trust. According to them, a tender was called for and on 27.10.2012, the Board of Trustees inclusive of the plaintiff and the second defendant opened the tender for building construction and on 08.12.2012, the Board of Trustees inclusive of the plaintiff and the second defendant unanimously resolved to award the contract for construction of the building on the existing site to a builder.
7. The defendants would also allege that the meetings of the Board of trustees are held on 2nd and 4th Saturday of every month and the plaintiff was aware of the meeting of the Board of Trustees to be held on 28.09.2013, since it is a periodical and regular routine meeting as per the practice followed by the Trust. Therefore, no communications or notice is necessary. However, it is claimed that intimation about the meeting dated 28.09.2013 was sent to the plaintiff as well as the second defendant through SMS from the mobile phone of the 4th defendant, who is also a trustee. According to defendants 3 to 5, the plaintiff and the second defendant deliberately abstained from attending the meeting and no request was received by them for the postponement of the meeting on 28.09.2013. The defendants 3 to 5 would further contend that the completion of the construction of the building was getting delayed and considering the fact that the price of the building materials and cost of construction going up day-by-day, they have decided to remove the block, viz. the plaintiff and continued with the construction.
8. According to defendants 3 to 5, the Trust has unanimously passed a resolution on 12.11.2011 to demolish the old building and construct a new building in its place. Further resolutions were passed by the Board of Trustees on various dates for obtaining approval of the building plan as well as the building permit and the proposed construction after demolishing the old building. It is at this stage, the plaintiff objected to the construction and prevented the construction that was going on. It is also claimed that the counsel for the Trust as well as the Chartered Accountant had opined that many further delay in the construction will result in huge financial lost to the Trust. It is only because of the activities of the plaintiff in blocking the construction, which amounted to dereliction of duty as a trustee and caused huge loss to the Trust, the defendants 3 to 5 were forced to remove the plaintiff as a trustee of the institution. On the above contentions defendants 3 to 5 sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by this Court on 14.11.2014.
1.Whether the resolution dated 28.09.2013 passed by the defendants 1,3 and 5 is legal and not ultra vires?
2.Whether the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the validity of the resolution dated 28.09.2013, when he was acquiesced by his own conduct?
3.Whether the doctrine of indoor management is applicable to the administration and management of the first defendant/trust?
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction as prayed for?
5.To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled to?
10. At trial the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The 5th defendant was examined as D.W.1 and the Exhibits D1 to D24 were marked by the defendants.
11. I have heard Mr.R.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 3 to 5.
Issue No.1:
12. Admittedly the Will dated 07.07.1931, which created the trust does not provide for any procedure for removal of the trustee. It only enables the original trustees appointed by the testator to nominate their successors, subject to a ceiling of a total number of five trustees at a time. The nomination of the plaintiff as a trustee on 07.04.2005 is not in dispute. The question that would arise is in the absence of any procedure for removal of a trustee in the Will dated 07.07.1931, whether the majority of the trustees had the power to remove a trustee by a resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Trustees, that too without even affording an opportunity to the trustee who is sought to be removed. The copy of the resolution dated 28.09.2013 has been produced and marked as Ex.P2, it reads as follow:
jPh;khdk; 1: brd;id. irjhg;ngl;il vz; 30 Fath; tPjpapy; ,Uf;Fk; mwf;fl;lisf;F brhe;jkhd ,lj;jpy; cs;s giHa fl;olj;ij ,oj;J me;j ,lj;jpy; g[[jpa fl;olk; fl;Ltjw;F 12/11/2011 md;W ele;j mw';fhtyh; Tl;lj;jpy; jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;L mjd; mog;gilapy; giHa fl;olj;ij ,of;fg;gl;L mjd;gpd; gy;ntW njjpfspy; ele;j mw';fhtyh; Tl;lj;jpy; vLf;fg;gl;l Kotpd; go g[jpa fl;olk; fl;Lk; ntiy bjhl';fg;gl;lJ fl;olk; fl;Ltjw;F fhd;uhf;lh; xg;ge;jk; nghlg;gl;L. Kd; gzKk; bfhLf;fg;gl;L ntiy ele;J te;jJ/ Vw;fdnt jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;lgo fl;olj;ijf; fl;l njitgLk; gzj;ij t';fp K:yk; fld; bgWtJ vd;w Kot[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ t';fpapy; fld; bgwKoahjjhy; ed;bfhil kw;Wk; tl;o ,y;yhfld; bgw;W fl;olg; gzpia bjhlh;e;J Kog;gJ vd;W jPh;khzpf;fg;gl;lJ/ nkw;go fl;olg; gzp bjhlh;e;J Kof;fhj tifapy; mw';fhtyh; jpU/rz;Kf jahee;jd; mth;fs; 08/06/2013. 15/06/2013. 10/08/2013 kw;Wk; 14/09/2013 njjpfspy; ele;j mw';fhtyh; Tl;l';fspy; nkny Fwpg;gpl;l jPh;khd';fSf;Fk; mjd; mog;gilapy; ele;J bfhz;oUf;Fk; bray; ghLfSf;Fk; tpnuhjkhf fUj;Jfis gjpt[ bra;Jk; ele;JtUk; tsh;r;rpg; gzpfSf;F Kl;Lf;fl;il nghLtjhy; mwf;fl;lis tsh;r;rpg; gzpfSk; md;whl eltof;iffSk; btFthf Kl';fp nghfpwJ Mfnt mwf;fl;lisapd; tsh;r;rpg; gzpfs; jilapy;yhky; Kd;ndWk; tifapy; mwf;fl;lisapd; eyd; fUjp mw';fhtyh; jpU/rz;Kf jahee;jd; mth;fis mw';fhtyh; cWg;gpdh; gjtpapypUe;J ePf;Ftjw;F jPh;khdk; Kd;bkhHpag;gLfpwJ/ A notice appended to the said resolution, which reads as follows:
mw';fhtyh;fs; jpU/S.ehuhazd; kw;Wk; jpU/rz;Kf jahee;jd; mth;fs; ,UtUf;Fk; jfty; jug;gl;Lk; ,d;iwa (28/09/2013) mw';fhtyh; Tl;lj;jpw;F tutpy;iy/ nkw;bfhz;l jPh;khdj;ij bgUk;ghz;ik mw';fhtyh;fs; Vw;Wf; bfhs;sg;gl;ljhy; nkw;fz;l jPh;khdk; epiwntw;wg;gl;lJ/ ,e;j jPh;khdj;jpd; efiy jpU/rz;Kf jahee;jd; mth;fSf;F gjpt[ jghy; K:yk; mDg;gg;gLfpwJ/
13. By his letter dated 01.10.2013, the plaintiff has pointed out that he had not received any notice for the meeting to be held on 28.09.2013. The claim of the defendants 3 to 5 that a notice was given via SMS, is stoutly denied by the plaintiff. In and by a said letter, the plaintiff had required the defendants to allow him to continue as a trustee. A reply is sent by the defendants 3 to 5 on 16.10.2013, wherein they have stated that the meeting held on 28.09.2013, is a periodical meeting held as per the regular practice. A resolution dated 19.10.2011, on the Board of Trustees is also referred to wherein it was decided that meetings of the Board of Trust are to be conducted on 2nd and 4th Saturdays of every month. They had claimed that the information regarding the meeting was sent by SMS from the mobile phone of Dr.N.Satchidhanandam, who is one of the trustees. The said reply claims that majority of the trustees have the power to remove the trustee and the resolution is as per law. The reason for removal is stated to be the objection of the plaintiff to the manner in which the construction is put up.
14. Mr.R.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would contend that the Trust being a Public Charitable Institution, it is governed by Section 92 of the Civil Procedure and in the absence of any bye-laws governing the administration of the Trust, the Trust has to necessarily seek removal of the trustee only by way of a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The removal of the trustee by the majority of the trustees that too without even giving him an opportunity is illegal and ultra vires Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr.R.Ravi, learned counsel would further submit that the very fact that no notice was given to the plaintiff regarding the proposed action against him would render the resolution dated 28.09.2013, illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice.
15. Per contra Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, learned counsel appearing for the defendants 3 to 5 would submit that it is because of the activities of the plaintiff which were against the interest of the trust, the defendants 3 to 5 were forced to remove the plaintiff as the trustee of the first defendant Trust. He would contend that the Doctrine of Indoor Management would apply and therefore the majority of the trustees are entitled to remove the plaintiff as a trustee. He would also refer to the various resolutions passed by the Trust earlier, wherein the plaintiff is also a consenting party and he would contend that it is because of the attitude of the plaintiff, which he had developed subsequently, in opposing the construction of a new building in the place of the old building the majority of the trustees were forced to remove the plaintiff from the Board of Trustees.
Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, would also point out that it has been elicited in Cross-examination of the plaintiff that he was a trustee of another institution in Thirutani, where also he was removed due to his anti-trust activities. Therefore, according to Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, the removal of the plaintiff is justified and the opinion of the Advocate as well as the Chartered Accountant would show that the stoppage of construction would result in heavy financial loss to the Trust and the philanthropic activities as provided under the Will of the testator cannot be carried out. It is seen from the evidence particularly the Cross-examination of the plaintiff that, apart from the plaintiff, the other trustee, namely the second defendant Dr.Sema Narayanan, also wrote his dissent to some of the resolution passed by the trust earlier in point of time.
16. D.W.1, viz. the 5th defendant has filed proof affidavit, wherein the earlier resolutions of the trust by which the trust had decided to demolish the existing old construction to put up new construction have been referred to and it is claimed that because of the plaintiff's activities in blocking the construction, he was removed from the Board of Trustees. It is stated in the proof affidavit that there was no violation of principles of natural justice and it is the plaintiff, who had misconducted himself in not accepting democratic principles. It is also claimed that the plaintiff has no right to seek interference in the Indoor Management of the first defendant Trust.
17. In Cross-examination, D.W.1 would admit that there was no notice issued to the trustees for the meeting held on 28.09.2013. She would state that they assembled on 28.09.2013 as per convention. She would also state that she was aware that the plaintiff is going to be removed as a trustee prior to the meeting held on 28.09.2013, and she would also add defendants 3 and 4 were also aware of the said fact. It is claimed by her that though an attempt was made to inform the plaintiff over the phone, that a meeting is to be held on 28.09.2013, plaintiff did not pick up the phone. She also added that the plaintiff was expected to know about the meeting on 28.09.2013 as it was a regular practice. It is seen from the resolution that the second defendant was also not present at the meeting held on 28.09.2013.
18. D.W.1 would further admit that they have not issued any show cause notice to the plaintiff because the plaintiff did not give them such opportunity. From the evidence on record, it is seen that no show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff, nor was there any attempt to inform the plaintiff about the impending removal and requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the office of the Trusteeship. It is settled law that the removal of a person as a trustee visits him with civil consequences and the same cannot be done without giving an opportunity of being heard against the said removal. While admitting that the plaintiff was not given any show cause notice asking him to explain as to why he should not be removed from the trusteeship, defendants 3 to 5 would contend that he was expected to attend the meeting of the Board of Trustee on 28.09.2013 and having failed to attend the meeting, he cannot make a grievance of his removal.
19. Admittedly, the first defendant Trust is a Public Charitable Trust to which the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. In the absence of any procedure in the Trust Deed for removal of trustees, it is incumbent on the defendants to approach the Court by way of a suit under Section 92 seeking removal of the plaintiff as a trustee. Even assuming the majority of the trustees have the power to remove a trustee, who according to them acts against the interest of the Trust, atleast minimum requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice should have been followed.
20. Admittedly, there was no agenda for the meeting dated 28.09.2013. The majority of the trustees cannot join together and remove a trustee at their pleasure without even giving an opportunity to show cause as to why he should not be removed. The conduct of the defendants 3 to 5 to say the least amounts to violation of all principles of natural justice and the removal of the plaintiff cannot be said to be in accordance with law.
Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, learned counsel would however contend that the present suit itself is one which would fall within the scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore the suit having been filed without leave under Section 92 ought not to have been entertained. I am unable to accept the said submission. The present suit is a suit by a trustee challenging his removal, thereby espousing his personal cause and the same would not at any stretch of imagination fall within the scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the resolution dated 28.09.2013, passed by defendants 3 to 5 is illegal and ultra vires Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as opposed to the principles of natural justice. Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No.2:
21. The defendants would contend that the plaintiff being party in the earlier resolutions regarding demolition of the existing construction and putting up a new construction, and he is estopped from questioning the validity of the resolution dated 28.09.2013, to which, according to the defendants, he had acquiesced. A reading of the various previous resolutions, which have been filed as the exhibits on the side of the defendants would show that the plaintiff has not really objected to the construction. He had in fact endorsed the resolutions regarding demolition of the old structure and putting up a new structure in order to augment income of the Trust. What has been objected to the proposal to borrow monies for the purpose of the construction. From the dissenting notes made by the plaintiff as well as the second defendant, it is seen that they have only raised objections regarding the manner in which the construction is sought to be carried out and I do not find any objection regarding the proposal to construct. It is also seen that in some of his dissenting notes made, the plaintiff had raised certain issues regarding the conduct of defendants 3 to 5, particularly in the minutes of the meeting held on 27.07.2013, it is seen that the plaintiff has taken objections to the manner in which the defendants 3 to 5 have been going about conducting the affairs of the Trust. It is also seen that the defendants 3 to 5 have also recorded their reply for the objections raised by the plaintiff and the second defendant the other trustee. From these resolutions as well as the dissenting notes it cannot be construed that the plaintiff has in any manner acquiesced to the resolution dated 28.09.2013. There is no question of estopped operating against the plaintiff. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No.3:
22. The first defendant Trust being a Public Charitable Institution, it is bound by the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the absence of any procedure for removal of trustees, the first defendant Trust is bound to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 92, and at the least, the first defendant Trust is bound to issue notice to the plaintiff seeking his response on the proposal to remove. Even that fundamental requirement of law has been breached by defendants 3 to 5. There is no question of doctrine of indoor management applying to the activities of Public Charitable Trust, and it is governed by law. Hence, issue No.3 is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
23. Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, learned counsel, appearing for the defendants 1 and 3 to 5 would rely upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Aurobindo Ashram Trust and others v. R.Ramanathan and others reported in 2016 (6) SCC 126, to contend that a suit under the provision of Section 92, cannot be invoked by a person to redress his personal grievance. There is no dispute about the proposition of law. The present suit is not one under Section 92. It is the suit simplicitor challenging the removal of the plaintiff from the trusteeship of the Public Charitable Trust. It does not fall within the ambit of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Removal of a person from the office of trustee definitely visits him with civil consequences. He is entitled to challenge the said removal by way of the suit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
24. Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham, learned counsel, would also rely upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 115 as well as the judgment of mine in Shevapet Sowrashtra Vidhyalaya Sabai Trust v. Sri. Panduranganadhaswami Devasthanam, reported in 2017 (1) LW 740, in support of his contention that the present suit is one under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As I have already pointed out that this suit is not one under Section 92 and therefore, the above two judgments do not apply to the facts of this case.
Issue No.4:
25. Once it is found that the removal of the plaintiff is bad, he would automatically be entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for and he will be entitled to function as a trustee of the first defendant Trust till he is removed by a process known to law.
26. In fine the suit is decreed as prayed for the resolution dated 28.09.2013, removing the plaintiff as a trustee of the first defendant Trust is declared ultra vires and non-est in eye of law. The plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 3 to 5 permitting to discharge his duties as a trustee of the first defendant Trust. In view of the fact that the first defendant is the Public Charitable Trust and its resources are to be used for the performance of the philanthropic activities as directed by the Founder in its Will dated 07.07.1931, I direct the parties to bare their own costs in this suit.
19.01.2018 Index: No Internet: Yes Speaking order jv List of Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff:
PW1 Shanmuga Dayanandam List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Plaintiff:
Sl. No. Exhibits Description of Documents Date 1 Ex.P1 The printed version of probate of the Will executed by P.Subramania Udayar 07.07.1931 2 Ex.P2 The copy of the board resolution along with the covering letter signed by the defendants 3 to 5 28.09.2013 3 Ex.P3 The notice issued by plaintiff to the 4th defendant along with the postal acknowledgment card and postal receipt 01.10.2013 4 Ex.P4 The original CSR receipt for the complaint given by plaintiff to the Sub Inspector, J1 Police Station, Saidapet 11.10.2013 5 Ex.P5 The reply notice issued by defendants 3 to 5 to the plaintiff 16.10.2013 List of Witnesses examined on the side of the Defendants:
DW1 P.S.Vijayalakhsmi List of Exhibits marked on the side of the Defendants:
Sl. No. Exhibits Description of Documents Date 1 Ex.D1 In the pamphlet both the old and new building of the Trust is shown
-2
Ex.D2 The Photocopy of the resolution passed appointing the plaintiff as the Trustee 07.04.2005 3 Ex.D3 The Photocopy of the resolution 19.10.2011 4 Ex.D4 The Photocopy of the resolution 10.03.2012 5 Ex.D5 The Photocopy of the resolution 12.01.2013 6 Ex.D6 The Photocopy of the emergency notice was circulated to all the trust members 30.01.2013 7 Ex.D7 The photocopy of the construction agreement with Ravicon Builders
-8
Ex.D8 The photocopy of the planning permission and approval from the Corporation of Chennai and counter signed by CMDA
-
9Ex.D9 The trust meeting was convened and the minute of the same 15.06.2013 10 Ex.D10 The photocopy of the dissent note written by Sema Narayanan
-
11Ex.D11 The extract photocopy of the original minute book 19.10.2011 12 Ex.D12 The extract photocopy of the resolution 08.06.2013 13 Ex.D13 The extract photocopy of the said letter 15.06.2013 14 Ex.D14 The photocopy of the opinion given by Advocate, Dr.Manimaran obtained as per the resolution of the Trust 12.06.2013 15 Ex.D15 The Photocopy of the opinion given by the Chartered Accountant by name A.S.Varadarajan & Co.
05.07.2013 16 Ex.D16 The photocopy of the second opinion was also obtained from Advocate P.K.Sivasubramanian 28.06.2013 17 Ex.D17 The photocopy of the Auditor's opinion obtained by the Trust 09.07.2013 18 Ex.D18 (series) The extract photocopy of the resolution passed by the committee as well as my objections 27.07.2013 19 Ex.D19 (series) The extract photocopy of the resolution 10.08.2013 20 Ex.D20 The photocopy of the opinion given by Senthamari Kannan formerly retired Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
-
21Ex.D21 (series) The photocopies of the resolution of the Trust from the pages 32 to 35 and the other resolution and counter opinions containing pages 36 to 42 27.07.2013 22 Ex.D22 (series) The photocopies of the resolution of the Trust from the pages 133 and 139 14.04.2012 23 Ex.D23 The photocopy of the resolution of the Trust containing in page no.127 12.11.2011 24 Ex.D24 The photocopy of the resolution of the Trust containing in page no.137 06.04.2012 19.01.2018 jv To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.
jv Pre Delivery Judgment C.S.No.312 of 2014 19.01.2018