AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
28 paragraphs · 579 wordsYogesh Khanna, J
IA Nos.15607 and 15608 of 2017
These applications are (a) for modification of the order dated 20.11.2017 to an extent to exempt defendant no.1 the applicant herein from depositing
an amount of Rs.19.2 crores and (b) grant relief to the defendant no.1 to place on record the additional documents/records.
On 20.11.2011 an order was passed directing the defendant no.1 either to deposit in the Court an amount of Rs.19.2 crores or furnish a bank
guarantee to the extent of Rs.19.2 crores with the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks. Such an amount was qua consideration of the
sale of trust property.
On 21.04.2017 this Court noted the plea of the parties wherein the defendant in reply to IA No.23822/2014 reiterated an amount of Rs.19.2 crores
is lying secured in the account of defendants no.1 and 2 though their counsel was not sure if was lying in savings bank account or in the current
account of defendants and that such amount is kept alive during the pendency of the suit and will be not spent in the activities of the trust. However
the defendant no.1 I did not disclose as to where such amount was lying.
I had discussed in my order dated 20.11.2017 the objects of the trust which never gave any power to sell the property as noted in para 9. The
manner in which the defendants reframed rules and regulations of the trust giving more power to the trustees, including the power to sell the property
of the trust by simple majority (see clause 9 of the amended trust deed) would show the transaction fishy. The power of the trustees in initial trust
deed dated 06.03.1978 was limited only to framing rules for the conduct of management of the trust. It was only on considering over all facts viz.,
defendants being permanent residents of England the defendant no.1 was directed to do the needful.
Now the learned counsel for the defendant no.1 intends to place on record additional documents on behalf of defendant no.1 to impress the Court to
modify its earlier order. Such documents are photocopies of cheques showing the amount of Rs. 19.2 crores coming in the account of trust and then
being distributed as donations. These documents, even otherwise, are not relevant to decide the controversy, as would only further the arguments of
the defendant no.1 the amount has been distributed as donation to various organizations which argument is contrary to their earlier contention viz. the
amount of Rs.19.2 crores was kept for purchase of trust property at Ponta Sahib and is kept alive and would not be spent in activities of the trust.
Further the defendant no.1 intends to review the order dated 20.11.2017 by filing these documents but could not satisfy such documents if were not
available with the trust and why were not filed earlier and why contrary statements to such documents were made. The defendants have not put
forward a case of discovery of a new matter or such evidence not within the knowledge of defendant no.1 or could not be produced at the time
despite due diligence when the impugned order was made. There is no error apparent on the face of record hence there is no reason to modify it. The
applications are dismissed being devoid of merit.
CS(OS) 558/2014 IA Nos.4962/2015, 434/2018, 433/2018, CCP(O) 2/2018, CRL.M.A. 590/2018, 8598/2016
List for directions before Roster Bench on 15.02.2018.
