ADARSHA SUGAMA SANGEETHA ACADEMY Vs. VRINDA S. RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Misc. No.548/2013 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, have filed this writ petition challenging the Order dtd. 6/2/2016 passed under Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') granting leave to the petitioners therein/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to file a suit against them.

(2.) The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

(3.) A proceeding under Sec. 92(1) of the CPC was initiated by the petitioners seeking leave of the Trial Court to present a suit against the respondents in Misc. No.548/2013. The petitioner No.1 claimed to be a Trustee of the respondent No.1 while the petitioner No.2 claimed to be a music aficionado and interested in the activities of the Trust. The petitioners asserted that the respondent No.1 was a public charitable Trust of which the petitioner No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the Trustees. The petitioners alleged that the meetings of the Trust were not conducted regularly and that not even a single Annual General Body meeting of the Trust was held. They alleged that one of the Trustees, Sri G.Y. Bhagwan died long back and his place was not filled up. They also alleged that they noticed irregularities and misappropriation of funds and suggested to the respondent No.2 to induce democracy in the functioning of the Trust. They alleged that the respondent No.2 kept petitioner No.1 away from the activities of the Trust. They further alleged that the respondent No.2 was conducting the activities of the Trust as if it was a proprietary concern and spending the funds of the Trust at his will. The respondent No.2 was accused of organizing music concerts in the name of the Trust in foreign countries, proceeds of which were never accounted for. With these and various other allegations, the petitioners sought for permission to file a suit to frame a scheme for management of the Trust. Along with the petition under Sec. 92(1) of the CPC., the petitioners also placed on record a proposed plaint.