Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vi) illegally taking over control and management and affairs of the Trust
(vii) misuse of the funds by creating false records of the salary of her driver, giving loan to her former domestic servant.
(viii) renting out part of premises to M/s Reliance without the approval of the Board, appointment of a male person, namely, Rajesh Priyadarshi as hostel in-charge of women inmates.
(ix) appointment of two Trustees, namely, Cynthia Masih and Raj Kumari Kubba in violation of Rules & Regulations of the Trust, generally fabricating documents and misappropriation of Trust funds and misuing the Trust properties for her own purposes.
Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matte of the Trust is situate to obtain a decree --..."

19.2 Challenge to maintainability of the suit, on behalf of defendant, is that it is only one of the Trustees, is available and pursuing the suit and the leave of the Court was not sought by two more persons having any interest in the Trust. To counter this argument, Sh. Mishra has pointed out that the suit as initially preferred was by Trust and two Trustees, namely, Zakia Sultana and Renu Talwani, i.e., plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. Trust itself was plaintiff no. 1 through third Trustee, namely, Devyani Sircar. It is argued that these three Trustees out of the five had preferred the suit. The suit was accordingly, preferred by two or more persons having interest in the Trust, meeting the mandate of Section 92 CPC. Summons were issued by Hon'ble High Court where the suit was then pending on 27.04.2006 and by the same order, IA seeking leave under Secton 92(1) CPC was allowed. It can thus, be said that the application under Section 92(1) CPC was first considered on the said date. The arguments on the application Delhi Mahila Samaj Vs. Rumma S. Sunder Page No. 48 of 79 :: 49 ::

20. Challenge is also made to maintainability of the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Action of defendant no. 1 in inducting Cynthia Masih and Raj Kumar Kubba, as Trustees without the consent of other Trustees has been sought to be set aside by way of prayer clause (e). Defendant raised objection to maintainability of the suit, as both of the Trustees, namely, Raj Kumari Kubba and Cynthia Masih, whose induction as Trustees is challegned, were not made parties. It has however, come in evidence that during the pendency of the suit, defendant no. 1 removed them as Trustees in the same manner as they were inducted. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that without going into the manner in which these two Trustees were inducted and subsequently, expelled by the defendant, it shall be sufficient to note here that since both of them are admittedly no more Trustees, non-impleadment of them as defendants would not prejudice their interests. However, as regards the conduct of defendant in unilaterally inducting them and subsequently, expelling them as Trustees shall be relevant to be considered for while deciding issues no. 3, 4, 5 and 9. For deciding those issues, Raj Kumari Kubba and Cynthia Masih were certainly not necessary or proper parties to the suit. Therefore, non- impleadment of them would not in any manner, be ground to Delhi Mahila Samaj Vs. Rumma S. Sunder Page No. 51 of 79 :: 52 ::

Trust. Vide notice datd 04.11.2005 Ex.P7, she convened a meeting for 28.11.2005 for disqualification and removal of some of the Trustees and induction of two new Trustees and further for sending the names of new Trustees, Raj Kumari Kubba and Cynthia Masih as signatories in the Trust zaccount with Oriental Bank of Commerce and Bank of India. Defendant's unilateral conduct of the proceedings of the Trust reached its zenith, when she conducted the meeting of the Trust on 28.11.2005 (Ex.P20). In the said meeting, knowing fully well and having already been removed from the Chairpesonship of the Trust, she continued to be the Chairperson and in the presence of only one member Dr. S.V. Saluja she removed three of the plaintiff Trustees from the Board of Trust and inducted two new Trustees, namely, Cynthia Masih and Raj Kumari Kubba. Vide the same proceedings, Cynthia Masih and Raj Kumari Kubba were also made authorised signatories for the purposes of bank accounts of Trust and all the three plaintiff Trustees were divested of such rights. There is nothing on record to indicate that the plaintiff Trustees, who by defendant's own admission were Trustees on the said date, had been invited to the aforesaid meeting or were even informed about the same. Such decision taken by two of the five Trustees, who do not constitute the majority, would not stand the Delhi Mahila Samaj Vs. Rumma S. Sunder Page No. 63 of 79 :: 64 ::