- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 1 November 2018
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
- Case no.
- CS(OS) 119/2016
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. NOVEMBER 01, 2018/"pp/bs" (corrected and released on 12th December, 2018)
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 1st November, 2018. + CS(OS) 119/2016, IA No.3237/2016 (of the plaintiffs u/S 92(1) CPC), IA No.9266/2016 (for clarification of order dated 12th May, 2016), IA No.10217/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) and IA No.10218/2016 (u/O VII R-11 r/w O-I R-10 CPC) RAM GANDHI & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Rajiv Bahl and Mr. S.P. Srivastava, Advs. Versus PREM DAAN SANSTHAN TRUST & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Julien George, Advs. for D-1 to 6. Mr. Lovleen Goyal, Adv. for D-7. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The two plaintiffs, namely Shri Ram Gandhi and Naresh Chander Sharma, have instituted this suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the plaint in this suit was accompanied with an application under Section 92(1) read with Section 151 of the CPC for grant of permission to sue the defendant no.1, a Public Charitable Trust. 2. The suit along with the application came up first before this Court on 10th March, 2016, when summons of the suit and notice of the said application were ordered to be issued. Vide subsequent order dated 12th May, 2016, direction for filing of written statement was issued. 3. The defendants no.1 to 5 namely (i) Prem Daan Sansthan Trust; (ii) Rakesh Chabra; (iii) Renu Saxena; (iv) Vinit Saxena; and, (v) Poornima R. Chabra, filed IA No.9266/2016 for clarification of the order dated 12th May, 2016 to the effect that they were not required to file the written statement till the decision of IA No.3237/2016 under Section 92(1) of the CPC. Notice of the said application was also ordered to be issued. The defendant no.7 Axis Bank has also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Pleadings in the applications have been completed. 4. The counsel or the plaintiffs and the senior counsel for the defendants no.1 to 6 (defendant no.6 is Shri Vivekanand Sahoo) were heard on 31st October, 2018 on the application of the plaintiffs to sue the defendant No.1, a public charitable trust and on request of the counsel for the plaintiffs, the hearing was adjourned to today and the counsels have been heard further today on the maintainability of the suit under Section 92 of the CPC. 5. The plaintiffs, in the plaint plead that (i) that on 30th August, 2004 one Shri Yashpal Chabra resident of California (USA) executed a registered Trust Deed at New Delhi appointing himself, defendant no.2, plaintiff no.1 and one Shri Prashant Bhalla as the permanent trustees, for providing support to any individual, group or organization in promoting education, both formal and informal to children and adults and for upliftment of the under privileged and for certain other public purposes; (ii) the Trust was declared to be known as Premdaan Sansthan; (iii) Shri Yashpal Chabra being the founder of the Trust was also the Managing Trustee of the Trust; (iv) Shri Yashpal Chabra died on 14th July, 2010; (v) the plaintiff no.1 is a founder permanent trustee of the Trust; (vi) the management and control of the Trust and the Trust properties vested in the Board of Trustees of the Trust; (vii) two immovable properties of the Trust are situated at New Delhi; (viii) all the activities of the Trust were being carried out on the instructions of Yashpal Chabra only; (ix) since the demise of Yashpal Chabra, neither any activity of the Trust has been carried out nor any meeting of the permanent trustees have been held; (x) it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff no.1 that large amounts from the bank account of the Trust had been transferred to some unknown accounts, to the detriment of the defendant no.1 Trust; (xi) both the properties of the Trust had been let out and are earning rent; (xii) the defendants are required to furnish details of rental income to the plaintiff no.1; (xiii) the plaintiff no.1 has been requesting the defendant Trust to call meetings of the Trustees and to start its activities, to achi
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.