TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Case Dismissed: Plaintiffs' Claims Rejected Due to Lack of Evidence</h1> <h3>Dr. Rajam Sethuraman, J. Mohammed Nazir, M. Rabia Banu Versus Maha Semam Trust, Dr. N. Sethuraman, Mr. N. Rajagopal, H. Sivananthan, V. Sathiyanarayanan And Others</h3> Dr. Rajam Sethuraman, J. Mohammed Nazir, M. Rabia Banu Versus Maha Semam Trust, Dr. N. Sethuraman, Mr. N. Rajagopal, H. Sivananthan, V. Sathiyanarayanan ... Issues Involved:1. Removal of Trustees and Management of Maha Semam Public Charitable Trust.2. Allegations of Misappropriation and Diversion of Trust Funds.3. Interim Injunction Against Transfer of Control of 9th Respondent Company.4. Maintainability of Suit Under Section 92 of CPC.5. Collusion Among Family Members and Bona Fides of Litigation.Summary:1. Removal of Trustees and Management of Maha Semam Public Charitable Trust:The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 of CPC seeking removal of defendants 2 to 8 from the Trusteeship of Maha Semam Public Charitable Trust, directing them to render accounts, ordering inventory of properties, and settling a scheme for proper administration. The Trust was registered on 07.07.1999, and the 1st plaintiff was the founder Trustee who later resigned, and her son was inducted as a Trustee.2. Allegations of Misappropriation and Diversion of Trust Funds:The plaintiffs alleged that the 2nd defendant and his family members diverted Crores of rupees from the Trust to new Trusts and companies floated by them. Specific allegations included unauthorized payments, consultancy fees, and rents paid to family members, and siphoning funds to the 9th respondent Company. However, no documents were produced to substantiate these allegations, and the Advocate Commissioner could not collect relevant records.3. Interim Injunction Against Transfer of Control of 9th Respondent Company:The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the 9th respondent from proceeding with the voluntary liquidation process. The Division Bench initially directed the respondents to maintain status quo. However, the 9th respondent argued that the control of the Company had already transferred to a foreign investor, M/s.DWM, by operation of law, making the application for injunction unsustainable.4. Maintainability of Suit Under Section 92 of CPC:The Hon'ble Judge found that the suit was not maintainable under Section 92 of CPC as the plaintiffs had misled the Court by providing a false address for the Trust. The Trust's registered office was in Madurai, not Chennai, and leave to sue was not obtained against the 1st defendant. The Judge held that the plaintiffs were guilty of coming to Court with unclean hands.5. Collusion Among Family Members and Bona Fides of Litigation:The Court found that the litigation was collusive, designed by the family members of the 2nd defendant to settle scores with the foreign investor. The 2nd defendant continued as a Trustee, and the plaintiffs did not seek any interim relief against him, indicating collusion. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had not come with clean hands and found no prima facie case or balance of convenience in their favor.Conclusion:The Court dismissed CMP.No.7981/2022 and allowed CMP.No.13117/2022, finding no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court also noted that serious injury would be caused to the 9th respondent if the status quo order was extended further.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
