JAI BHARATH CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. A JAYAMOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt proceeding has been initiated against the contemnor on the memo filed by Mr. Justice V. Rengasamy , who was appointed as Administrator of Jai Bharath Charitable Trust, the first defendant in the suit in C. S. 294/2003.

(2.) IN the memo filed by the Administrator, it has been stated as follows: (a) This Court by its order dated 24. 6. 2003 appointed Mr. Justice V. Rengasamy as administrator to administer Jai Bharath Charitable trust namely the first defendant in C. S. No. 294 of 2003, and directed the defendants 2 and 3 to hand over the management of all the properties and records pertaining to the said Trust, to the Administrator within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved by the order of this court, the defendants filed appeals before the Division Bench in O. S. A. Nos. 235 and 247 of 2003, wherein the order of the learned Single Judge was modified on 8. 12. 2003. The plaintiffs took up the said order of the Division Bench to the supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 6555 and 6556 of 2004, and the Apex Court by its order dated 13. 12. 2004 set aside the order of the division Bench and restored the order of the learned Single Judge by allowing the appeals. (b) Pursuant to the order of the Apex Court , the order of the learned single Judge prevails, and the defendants are bound by the said order. The administrator sent letters dated 28. 12. 2004 to the Managing Trustee and his counsel M/ s. Sampath Kumar and Associates for complying with the direction of the learned Single Judge. The Counsel for the Managing Trustee sent a reply dated 31. 12. 2004 stating that the Administrator has not been empowered with the management of the trust and has no power to appoint or dismiss any employee or give any direction to any of the employees of the trust or to operate the Bank Account, but only to supervise all the moveable and immoveable. Another letter dated 6. 1. 2005, was sent by the Administrator to the Counsel for the Managing Trustee. The Counsel sent a reply dated 11. 1. 2005. Then, another notice was also sent by the same counsel on 12. 1. 2005. Apart from that, Thiru Jayamohan , the third defendant, himself sent a letter dated 8. 1. 2005 stating that he is the only person empowered to take disciplinary actions against any administrative faculties of Priyadarshini College and other institutions, and he is exercising his power conferred by the Trust. (c) The said Jayamoha n , disobeying the order of the Division Bench when it was in force, withdrew Rs. 8 ,95,055 /- between 1. 1. 2004 and 7. 1. 2004. During surprise check of the laboratory, certain articles were found missing, and when asked the Principal to explain, the said Jayamohan prevented the Principal not to answer for the explanation called for. Though the Administrator directed for remittance of the tuition fee by the students directly to the Bank Account, Jayamohan had collected the same from the first year Engineering students and did not remit the amount into the Bank Account. On 17. 11. 2004, the said Jayamohan prevented the Administrator from conducting the meeting of the trustees in the college premises. As regards the misconducts of the Managing Trustee and certain other instances, two contempt proceedings have been initiated before the Division Bench, and they are pending enquiry. If the managing Trustee had the power to act as per the Trust Deed, after the order of this Court, the Division Bench would not have intervened and had given the powers to the executive trustees to discharge their duties as per the Trust deed. The Supreme Court has observed that the Administrator is finding it difficult to function because of the directions made by the Division Bench which are being interpreted in their own way. IN spite of the orders of this court, the Managing Trustee claims that he has got all the powers to act as per the Trust Deed, and he is the only person empowered to employ or dismiss the employees of the trust, and the Administrator has no such power over the employees of the trust. (d) As the plaintiff Trustees are not satisfied with the style of functioning of the Managing Trustee under the Trust Deed, they approached the court for removal of the executive trustees. So by an interim order, this Court intervened and stripping the powers of the Executive trustees, the management has been shifted to the Administrator making it implicit that the Managing Trustee cannot function as per the Trust Deed, and they have no right of management of any sort over the trust properties. The managing Trustee cannot claim that the Court's order is ineffective and the trust Deed prevails over the Court's order. The same is nothing but contempt. The said Jayamohan bent upon to create problems in the administration by challenging and disobeying this Court's order. IN spite of two notices, he has not handed over the moveables and records, but is claiming that his powers are not curtailed and he would continue as such as per the clauses of the Trust Deed. Even under the trust deed, the Managing Trustee has not been given the power of such matters, and under Clause 18, his powers are only to sign the cheque s and receipts and to carry out the directions of the Trust Board and nothing else. For better functioning of the institutions, the Administrator constituted four committees. As this Court by its order has given absolute power of management over the properties of the trust, the Administrator has all right to form committees for easy administration. The Trust Board itself has accepted the constitution of these committees by its resolution dated 7. 10. 2004. (e) The Committee has suspended three employees namely Palani , Kaviyarasi and Ramachandra Rao for their misconducts. The said Jayamohan has threatened the principal of the Engineering College over phone and directed him to permit the suspended persons to work in the college. Those suspended persons have shouted at the Principal, and this was informed to the administrator by the Principal vide letter dated 11. 1. 2005. Since the funds of the trust are the properties which are under the management and control of the administrator, he issued a circular permitting the Chairman and the Life trustee Thiru Kesavan to sign the cheques. The said Jayamoha n sent a notice dated 11. 1. 2005 through his advocates stating that he along with another Trustee alone are entitled to operate the Bank Account. Another notice dated 12. 1. 2005 was also sent for the same purpose. Copies of the letter dated 11. 1. 2005 have been sent to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore , the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vaniambadi and other Police Officers to keep them also in obscure, as they may not be aware of the legal intricacies. The said Jayamohan is claiming by his letter dated 8. 1. 2005 that he alone has got the power to take disciplinary action and to employ or dismiss any employee. From the beginning, Jayamohan is not obeying the orders of this Court, and he has not handed over the charge of moveables and records of the Trust. (f) Further, he is also indulging in violence. On 17. 1. 2005, the Administrator was informed that Thiru Ekambaram , the husband of the life trustee Mrs. Padmavathi , who is a member of the purchase committee, was attacked by the men of Jayamohan within the Engineering College premises. There are also other complaints against Thiru Jayamohan for attacking one Rathinam the husband of the life trustee Mrs. Saroja , and Sundaramoorthy who has been appointed as overseer in the College. Hence, the said Jayamohan , the Managing Trustee of Jai Bharat Charitable Trust, may be dealt with for contempt and be punished for disobeying the order of this Court.

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments for the Administrator, the learned Counsel Mr. N. Suresh, took this Court to the various documents filed, and pointed out the violations of the direction given by this Court, and the disobedience to the proceedings of the Administrator issued pursuant to the order of this Court.