Delhi High Court
Lt. Gen C.K. Kapur(Retd.) And Ors. vs Guruji Ka Ashram And Ors. on 6 January, 2010
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 06.01.2010
+ CS(OS) 1478/2007
LT. GEN C.K. KAPUR(RETD.) AND ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through : Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Advocate along with Ms.
Aakanksha Munjhal, Advocate.
versus
GURUJI KA ASHRAM AND ORS. ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Amresh
Mathur and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1.
Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes.
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes.
reported in the Digest?
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
I.A. No. 9803/2009
1. The plaintiffs in this trust suit under Section 92 seek various reliefs, including the proper
management of the first defendant Trust. By an order of this Court, the permission to sue, under
Section 92, was granted. The record also discloses that by two orders dated 09.01.2008 and
10.04.2008, certain interim directions were made whereby the plaintiffs' willingness and
readiness to spend amounts for construction of a nursing college in Punjab and also bear the
salaries of employees working in the Trust, besides certain other day-to-day expenses, was
recorded.
I.A. NO. 9803/2009 IN CS (OS) 1478/2007 Page 1
2. By the present application, the plaintiffs seek appointment of a Receiver, contending that
the facts unveiled are on account of the expenditure disclosed to a Chartered Accountant (who
visited the defendants' Trust and inspected the books of accounts) reveal disturbing facts. It is
submitted that the Trust had paid Rs.82,68,740/- to M/s. M.R. Buildcom Private Limited for the
construction of late Guru Nirmal Ji's Samadhi. The plaintiffs submit that the amount claimed by
the builder was excessive and that the Trust willingly paid it. The Chartered Accountant's
objection to this course appears in the inspection note/report, which states that the award of the
contract was not preceded by competitive bidding and the Contractor had charged Value-Added
Tax (VAT) at 12.5% on the total billed amount, which was excessive. According to the
Chartered Account, the Contractor was entitled to deduction of 20% for labour charges and,
therefore, the VAT amount should have been lower. The principal objection on this head of
expenditure appears to be that the amount paid by the Trust was excessive and disproportionate,
having regard to the area of construction.
3. The second ground on which the Receiver's appointment is sought is the amounts spent
by the Trust towards construction of nursing college at Dugri, Punjab; the amount spent here was
approximately Rs.10,00,000/-. The plaintiffs' contention on this score is that the construction
was proceeded without any approval by authorities and, therefore, it is unauthorized and illegal.
The third ground on which the Receiver's appointment is sought is that as against the previous
year's (2007-08) expenditure, of Rs.8,00,000/-, towards langar and other festivals, the later
year's expenditure is disclosed to be in excess of Rs.30,00,000/-. The plaintiffs argue that this is
without any justification and points to waste and bad management on the part of the Trustees. It
is also argued that there has been no accounting of the cash received from the devotees.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submit that having regard to the well-settled principles
I.A. NO. 9803/2009 IN CS (OS) 1478/2007 Page 2
that the Court should take into consideration while deciding whether or not appointment of
Receiver is called for, the facts of the case as made out are sufficient for an order appointing a
Receiver. She relies upon decision of the Bombay High Court in Institute Indo-Portuguese and
others v. Dr. Theotonio Borges and others AIR 1959 (Bom) 275; M/s. Kothari Plantations &
Industries Ltd. v. Dakshinpat Satra and others AIR 1973 Gauhati 74 and Srinivasa Rao v.
Baburao and another AIR 1970 Mysore 141.
5. The defendants contest the application and argue that each instance of alleged wasteful
expenditure is based on mis-statements of facts. It is contended that the construction cost paid to
the Contractor, i.e. Rs.82,68,740/- was not in respect of the building of the Samadhi alone; it also
pertained to developing and improvement of the surrounding areas. The defendants submit that
the total area, which was developed and built, was in excess of 1900 square feet. They rely upon
the tender estimates furnished by the Contractor and submit that the final bills were paid after the
construction was duly completed. As far as the construction of nursing college is concerned, the
defendants rely upon the previous order of this Court whereby the plaintiffs' consent for the
construction at the site in Punjab was recorded when it was stated that the construction cost
would be undertaken by them (the plaintiffs). It is argued besides, that the plaintiffs' conduct
renders the application liable to be dismissed because they (the plaintiffs) did not fulfill the
commitment of depositing the amounts towards day-to-day expenses and salaries of Trust's
employees or even deposit the imprest amount of Rs.50,000/- by this Court's order.
6. The defendants' submission with regard to the expenditure borne by the Trust in
connection with various festivals celebrated in the previous year is that for the preceding years,
during the lifetime of Guruji, the expenditure was borne directly by the devotees, who used to
donate generously. It is contended that after the disputes arose concerning the management of the
I.A. NO. 9803/2009 IN CS (OS) 1478/2007 Page 3
Trust, the donations have dwindled and the Trust has been spending the amounts from its funds.
7. Besides the above, the defendants argue that the original objective of the Trust was to
create a corpus of Rs.100 crores, which continues, and at the time of Guruji's death, the Trust
had cash assets of Rs.40 crores. It is emphasized that this corpus has not been disturbed. It is
argued that the defendants have not indulged in any wasteful expenditure of the kind that would
necessitate appointment of a Receiver.
8. The Court has considered the submissions as well as the pleadings on the application. As
noticed, the request for appointment of Receiver is premised on three main grounds, i.e. the
alleged excessive expenditure towards cost of construction of the Samadhi - according to the
plaintiffs, the area of construction was 900 square feet and the amount spent, Rs.82,68,740/-, is
disproportionate and excessive. On this, the Court has considered the tender documents
submitted by the Contractor. Prima facie they disclose the area submitted by the Contractor as
well as the photographs. No doubt, the Samadhi area itself would be in the range of 900 square
feet, yet the Trust appears to have undertaken improvement of the surrounding areas. The tender
documents disclose that the total area constructed upon is much more than the Samadhi area.
Besides, the nature of construction appears to have entailed the kind of expenditure which took
place. Having regard to these circumstances and the undisputed fact that the Samadhi and the
surrounding areas were developed, as evidenced by the series of photographs relied on by the
defendants, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs' arguments on this score cannot be
accepted. As far as construction of nursing college is concerned, that fact was within the
knowledge of plaintiffs, who had volunteered to pay the amounts. During the course of
submissions, it was argued that the defendants did not obtain necessary sanctions or approvals as
a result of which the plaintiffs did not pay the funds. It is not for this Court to fathom what
I.A. NO. 9803/2009 IN CS (OS) 1478/2007 Page 4
necessitated the plaintiffs' volte face. The defendants have placed on record letter of the
Department of Town and Country Planning, Punjab, dated 26.05.2009 and the copy of an
approval issued by the concerned authority of the Government of Punjab, dated 03.06.2009,
approving the building plans. Having regard to these, the plaintiffs' contentions regarding the
construction of nursing school are untenable and baseless.
9. The last submission is regarding the alleged excessive expenditure incurred towards
festivals etc. The defendants' explanation here is that during the lifetime of Guruji, who attained
Samadhi on 31.05.2007, the Trust did not have to spend large amounts, as in the normal course,
the devotees used to donate liberally. It is argued that after the Samadhi of Guruji, such voluntary
effort is not forthcoming due to the disputes pending between the factions, which has
necessitated the present suit. Facially, the expenses have undoubtedly increased. However, the
Court cannot be unmindful of the practical situation in these circumstances. The followers of
Guruji appear to be large in number; in the event of their unwillingness to donate like previous
years (in his lifetime) the financial burden would inevitably have to be borne by the Trust. This
aspect alone is not sufficient for the Court to conclude that there was wasteful expenditure of the
kind that would entail appointment of the Receiver.
10. Having regard to the above circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the application
is not justified. I.A. No. 9803/2009 is accordingly dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.50,000/-
, to be paid by the plaintiffs, to the defendants, within four weeks.
CS(OS) 1478/2007
Learned counsel for the parties request the Court that the file in the digital format may be
supplied to both the counsel. The Registry is directed to appropriately furnish electronic file in a
DVD to the counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, and also make available similarly the file to the
I.A. NO. 9803/2009 IN CS (OS) 1478/2007 Page 5
Local Commissioner, to expedite the process of recording evidence.
List before the Local Commissioner on 18.01.2010 at 03.30 pm. List before the Court on
12.05.2010.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 06, 2010
'ajk'
I.A. NO. 9803/2009 IN CS (OS) 1478/2007 Page 6
I.A. NO. 9803/2009 IN CS (OS) 1478/2007 Page 7
