Delhi Mahila Samaj Trust (Regd) & ... vs Mrs. Rumma S. Sunder & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1434 Del

.*            HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

                                      Judgment pronounced on: 01.03.2012

+      C.M. Appl. Nos.9494/2011, 17420/2011, 17421/2011 in
       FAO(OS) No.380/2008

       DELHI MAHILA SAMAJ TRUST (REGD) & ANR.
                                               ..... Appellants
                    Through  Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. with
                             Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Adv.

                       Versus


       MRS. RUMMA S. SUNDER & ANR.               ..... Respondents
                     Through Mr. Navin Chawla, Adv. with
                             Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv. for the
                             respondents.
                             Mr. Rajiv Kumar Dubey, Adv. for
                             applicant in I.A. No.9494/2011.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The facts of the case are that there was a dispute with regard to management and functioning of the appellant trust which led to the filing of the suit being CS (OS) No.697/2006 under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for declaration, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts. In the said suit, the Trust was made plaintiff No.1 and the suit had been filed on its behalf through Ms. Devyani Sircar, its Managing Trustee. The plaintiff No.2 was another trustee Smt. Zakia Sultana who has since

died, Mrs. Renu Talwani was the plaintiff No.3 There were two defendants, namely, Smt. Rumma S. Sunder, who was the Chairperson of the Trust and as per the averments made in the plaint of the suit, she was removed from the said position on account of purported acts of mismanagement of the Trust and embezzlement of Trust money. The other defendant was ING Vysya Bank Ltd., where account of the Trust was maintained.

2. Vide order dated 23.07.2008, the interim applications filed along with the said suit were disposed of. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"92. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the defendant No.1 to forthwith stop the operation of the current A/c No.586011004769 in ING Vysya Bank - the defendant No.2, Panchsheel Park Branch, New Delhi - arrayed as defendant No.2 herein.

A further direction issued to the defendant No.1 to defreeze the accounts of trust in a Saving Bank A/c No.116483 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Near Batra Hospital Branch, New Delhi and saving Bank A/c No.8928 in Bank of India, Saket Branch, New Delhi.

93. It is directed that the bank accounts shall be operated by the same person(s) who stood authorized to operate the same in October 2005, inasmuch as no decision to the contrary has been taken at any validly conducted meeting. The defendant No.1 shall forthwith inform the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Near Batra Hospital Branch, New Delhi and the Bank of India, Saket Branch, New Delhi of the directions made today and to permit the operation of the a Saving Bank A/c Nos.116483 and 8928.

94. In view of the above discussion it is also directed that the defendant No.1 shall, for the time being, continue as chairperson of the trust while Ms. Devyani Sircar is appointed as an Observer who shall have the authority and perform all functions as are assigned to the Managing Trustee under the trust deed and the rules and regulations of the trust. This order shall continue till such time either both or these persons are substituted or removed in accordance with the stipulations of trust deed and the rules and regulations or by any further orders of this court, whichever is prior."

3. The above mentioned order was challenged by the plaintiffs/appellants by way of the present appeal. Vide order dated 20.02.2009, the order of the learned Single Judge was sustained, however, the appeal was disposed by this Bench with certain directions. The operative portion of the order dated 20.02.2009 reads as under:

"We therefore, modify the order of the learned Single Judge only to the effect that Ms. Justice Usha Mehra, retired Judge of this Court, is appointed to supervise the functioning of the appellant Trust. She shall be invited at all the meetings and shall have also right to go into the affairs of the Trust as and when she desires. If there is any complaint by the parties inter se against the Chairperson of the Trust, she shall also look into the same."

4. The learned Court Supervisor, Ms. Justice Usha Mehra, retired Judge of this Court, filed various reports on different occasions. In her first report dated 27.05.2009, she mentioned about differences between the trustees on various issues thus, the court issued certain directions to the trustees of the appellant trust. In her report dated 29.10.2010, the learned Court Supervisor mentioned various difficulties being faced in the running of the appellant trust. In her third report dated 03.02.2011, the learned Court Supervisor again highlighted various irregularities being committed by the chairperson of the appellant trust. Thereafter, the court issued a show cause to the chairperson. In her report dated 10.08.2011 the learned Court Supervisor observed that salaries of various staff and employees of the trust are not being paid. In fact, she stated that since October, 2010 even she was not taking her remuneration and therefore, she requested the court to relive her from this matter. The relevant extract of her report dated 10.08.2011 reads as under:

"2. Various reports have already been filed by the under signed before this Hon'ble Court. It has been observed that repeatedly the payment of salary and wages of the staff becomes the key issue every time. There are various staff and employees of the Trust whose salary and wages are due to be paid since long. Despite my several efforts and requests made to the trustees made to pay the salaries and wages of the staff member and employees whose subsistence depends upon the same, the salaries and wages to the staff members and the employees are not being paid.

3. Undersigned has observed that the Chairperson, Mrs. Rumma Shyam Sunder has adopted a unique self-styled policy of "pick and choose" from the staff(s) and the employee(s) for paying the salary. The salaries of the staff member and the employees who are directly under the supervision of the chairperson do not find any difficulty in getting the same. However, as regards the other staff and employees, the salaries are still due to be paid but not paid since the Chairperson on all occasion refuses to sign the salary cheques of the said staff members. Even I am not taking my remuneration from October, 2010. The chairperson has not accepted even my efforts and requests as Court Supervisor."

5. As far as her remuneration from the period of October, 2010 till August, 2011 is concerned, we are of the view that the learned Court Supervisor is entitled to get her remuneration from the trust.

6. As regards the other request, after having gone through the reports by the learned Court Supervisor, it appears to us that there are internal differences between the appellants and respondent No.1. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case as mentioned by the learned Court Supervisor, we relieve her from supervising the functioning of the appellant trust any further.

7. Various applications were filed by the employees of the appellants' trust with the grievance that they were not being paid their salaries due to non-payment of the same by the Chairperson. I.A. No.9494/2011 was filed by the staff/employees of the appellant trust, under Section 151 of CPC for

release of their salaries. It is stated in this application that inspite of the order of this court dated 21.01.2011 for release of salary to the staff of the appellant trust, the applicants have not received their salaries since June 2010 as Ms. Devyani Sircar, the co-signatory to the cheques is declining to sign their salary cheques on the pretext that she is not interested in continuance of the Centers being looked after by the applicants.

8. I.A. No. 17420/2011 has been filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC by one Ms. Sunita, a permanent employee of the appellant trust stating that she has been illegally removed from the service of the trust at the instance of respondent No.1. She has also stated that she continues to serve the appellant trust and is still working regularly, however, not receiving any salary due to the arbitrary action of the respondent No.1. She is seeking to be impleaded as a co-appellant in the appeal No.380 of 2008. I.A. No. 17421/2011 has been filed by Ms. Sunita under Section 151 CPC seeking stay of the order dated 28.05.2011 issued by respondent No.1 terminating her service from the appellant trust. She is also seeking arrears of her salary since April, 2011. It has been stated in the application on her behalf that she had been working as a nurse and attendant in the dispensary run by the trust for more that eleven years, however, owing to the differences and disputes between the trustees, respondent No.1, acting against the order dated 20.02.2009 of this court, and in an arbitrary and unfair manner and terminated the services of the applicant vide notice dated 28.05.2011.

9. As per Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellants, respondent No.1 is not signing the salary cheques on the pretext that she will sign them only when the appellants will sign the salary cheque of Mr. Naresh Kumar. According to the appellants, said Mr. Naresh Kumar has already been removed from the trust in May, 2010 on charge of

mismanagement and misuse of the trust funds. Further, it is stated that learned Court Supervisor has also instructed the appellants that salary cheques of those who have already been removed specifically Mr. Naresh Kumar must not be signed by them as they have ceased to be the employees of the trust. Despite that he has been given a loan of Rs.20,000/- in cash. He also stated that the appellants are asked to sign several other cheques which are not related to salaries without showing the supporting documents justifying the need of making such payments.

10. Mr. Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has referred four reports/observations of Court Supervisor regarding the functioning of respondent No.1 and has also made his submissions trying to show the conduct of the Chairperson by giving examples of various kinds with regard to the function of respondent No.1. He submits that respondent No.1 has been given various opportunities to mend her ways by the Court Supervisor or otherwise by the court but, all have turned out to be futile. Thus, she should now be restrained from functioning as the Chairperson of the appellant trust. He also referred reports of the learned Court Supervisor and according to him the function of the respondent No.1 as the Chairperson of the appellants' trust is detrimental to its interest.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Navin Chawla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/Chairperson has denied all the allegations made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan. As far as the observations made by the Court Supervisor against the respondent No.1 are concerned, he submits that it is only respondent No.1 doing the effective work so that the function of the trust may not be disturbed otherwise it would have been closed like others already closed. He admits that there might be some omissions on the part of respondent No.1 in functioning but, some of the mistakes do

happen when the person is doing multiple duties without the help of other members of the trust who do not attend the meetings and are merely creating obstacles in the functioning of the trust. According to him, sometimes the cheques of salaries are not signed by the appellants and also minutes of the meeting. According to him, there is total non co- operation from their side so that the trust may not run smoothly and their main agenda is to remove the respondent No.1 as a Chairperson by making allegations. He has made a request that it would be appropriate if any independent Court Supervisor be appointed by this Court who can spare reasonable time to supervise the functioning of the trust and also may be able to take decisions on the spot for minor issues involved so that for small complaints fresh applications are not required to be moved in court.

12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties from various angles and after having gone through the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to pass an order as pressed by the appellants to restrain the respondent No.1 from functioning as the Chairperson of the appellants' trust due to the reasons that main appeal filed by the appellants for the same relief has already been dismissed by our judgment dated 20.02.2009. Coupled with the fact that since there are allegations from both sides against each other, same relief prayed in the appeal cannot be granted after disposal of the appeal or reconsidered on the basis of subsequent events. We feel, the said grievances may be raised before the learned Single Judge where the suit is pending and as per law, it is open to the parties to take the appropriate proceeding before the learned Single Judge on the basis of fresh material available who may decide the same, if any such application is filed, as per

its merit. Permission is also granted to file fresh applications (on behalf of individuals) for the relief claimed in the pending applications before us.

13. As far as this matter is concerned, all pending applications are disposed of with these directions.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

A.K. SIKRI, J.

MARCH 01, 2012/ka