ARULMIGU ABHINAVA DHARMA SIVACHARIAR MUTT Vs. P EKAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications are filed to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents1 & 2/defendants 1 & 2 their agents or any one on their behalf from in anyway acting as Office Bearers or in any other capacity of Applicant/Plaintiff's Mutt, either by operating Bank Account of the Applicant/Plaintiff's Mutt either by operating its Bank Accounts No.10885932861 with State Bank of India, George Town, and No.33402010048555 with Union Bank of India Sowcarpet or in any other manner without express consent/permission of Treasurer P.S.Krishnamurthy and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to hold the election to all the trustees and office bearers of the Applicant/plaintiff Mutt, pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) The case of the applicant is that the Mutt formed several decades before is effectively run till date. Earlier, one Mr.P.K. Krishnamurthy was its President and Mr.P. Ekambaram was the Secretary. Both of them resigned by submitting letters to the Mutt on 15.10.2016 and 210.2016 respectively. This was duly accepted in the Minutes of Meeting, duly signed by the Treasurer and A.N.sureshkumar. The applicant being the life time Trustee of the mutt continuous to hold as Treasurer. Among other three trustees, Tr.K.M. Venkatesan died; Thiru A.N.Sureshkumar resigned and only Thiru G.Gopal continues to be other Trustee. Therefore, the Mutt is run by Treasurer T.S. Krishnamurthy and Trustee G.Gopal. The Mutt is having two bank accounts. Both can be operated with the signature of President, Secretary and Treasurer, jointly and cannot be operated by any one of them independently. As the post of the President and Secretary are vacant, bank accounts could not be operated by the plaintiff. Respondents 1 and 2, in connivance and conspiracy with the 3rd respondent suddenly entered the premises and made out a Minutes of Meeting as if Meeting of Trustees was conducted on 26.06.2018 to operate the accounts. This was done with the connivance and assistance of 3rd respondent. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are no longer office bearers of the Mutt and 3rd respondent is only a Trustee, the affairs of plaintiff Mutt have to be managed and dealt with only by the existing treasurer who is the applicant. Therefore, the applicant has come before this Court for the above prayers and also to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to hold election to all the Trustees and office bearers of the Mutt.

(3.) It is the main contention of the applicant that the respondents 1 and 2 resigned, therefore, an Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed to hold election of the Trustees. In both applications a common counter has been filed.