DR BALBIR SINGH, SECRETARY SIR CHHOTU RAM EDUCATIO Vs. CHARAN SINGH, VICE CHAIRMAN SIR CHHOTU RAM EDUCATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two applications have been filed by plaintiff seeking interim stay.

(2.) Plaintiff filed this suit as a Secretary of Sir Chhotu Ram Educational Trust (for short, 'the Trust') against the Vice Chairman and two of the Trustees alleging that the defendants were trying to destabilize the smooth functioning of the Trust and a prayer was made that permanent injunction be granted against the defendants and their agents, representatives not to create hindrance in the administration of the Trust by holding meeting for 'no confidence motion' against the present body of the institution i.e. Chairman and Secretary of the Trust on 16th October 2007. On 16th October 2007, when the suit was presented before this Court, this Court granted an ex parte order that the meeting scheduled for 16th October 2007, may be held but no further action in pursuant to the Resolution adopted be taken. The defendants filed written statement and reply to the application. It is submitted that the meeting of 10 trustees of the Trust had taken place on 16th October 2007 and in this meeting 'No Confidence Motion' was passed against the Chairman and Secretary Dr. Balbir Singh, of the institution, and it was resolved that both of them shall cease to hold official position in the Trust and institutions which come under the jurisdiction of the trust and the Vice Chairman of the Trust was requested to look after the work of chairman till a new chairman was appointed.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendants, a stand is taken that the suit itself is not maintainable since no leave of the Court was sought as required under Section 92 of CPC. It is further stated that there was wide scale misappropriation and bungling of funds done by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had opened a parallel account of the trust in the bank and lacs of rupees of the students were deposited in this account and thereafter huge amounts have been misappropriated. It is further stated that the 7 trustees have power to call an emergent meeting and trustees have power to pass a resolution fitting the situation, so as to see that the Trust property and funds are secured and properly managed. It is also submitted that the plaintiff had no right to continue in the Trust as Secretary after the 'No Confidence Motion'. The plaintiff, under the garb of ex parte interim injunction, has an intention of misappropriating the funds of the Trust.