IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1538 of 2004(G)
1. DR.T.D.BOSE, SON OF T.K.DAMODARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR.YOGIDAS, SON OF KRISHNAN,
... Respondent
2. V.K.PRABHAKARAN, SON OF KRISHNAN,
3. C.K.SUGATHAN, SON OF KRISHNAN,
4. PRATAP VARMA, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
5. SREE AGASTHYASRAMAM,
For Petitioner :.
^ For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated : / /
: O R D E R
.PL 55
.TM 3
.BM 2
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J.@@
jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
……………………………………@@
j
W.P.(C) No. 1538 of 2004 G@@
j
……………………………………@@
j
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2005@@
j
J U D G M E N T @@
jEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
((HDR 0
W.P.(C) 1538/04 :: # ::
))
.HE 1
.SP 2
The writ petitioner is the plaintiff, who lost
throughout in the trial court as well as in the lower
appellate court his plea for an interim prohibitory
injunction restraining the respondents from taking any
amount for their own use from the office of the 8th
defendant-Society without prior sanction of the general
body. The suit, i.e., O.S.1014/03 has been instituted by
the plaintiff, who is a member of the 8th
defendant-Society, Sree Agasthasramam registered under
the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific And Charitable
Societies Registration Act, 1955 (hereinafter called ‘The
Act’) seeking a declaration that the decision of the
executive committee that consiste[b[b[bd of defendants 1
to 7 to enhance the emoluments of the first defendant,
who is also a member of the executive committee is null
and void and that defendants 1 to 7 are not empowered to
permit the first defendant to have such enhanced
remuneration and for a permanent interim injunction,
restraining the defendants from withdrawing any amount
from the funds of the 8th defendant without the prior
approval of the general body. The dispute is mainly with
respect to the disbursal of the income derived by the
Society from Sree Agasthya Medical Centre wherein the
first defendant is also the Chief Physician. According
to the plaintiff, the byelaws of the Society specifically
interdicted any such enhancement as ordered by the
executive committee. The application for interim
injunction was disallowed by the trial court vide order
in I.A.4725/03 and the lower appellate court as per order
in C.M.A.158/03.
2. I find that the decision of the suit as such
would depend on the interpretation as to the powers of
the executive committee. Another point raised is that
the authority of the executive committee to continue in
office, beyond the period of one year vide Section 7 of
the Act as the provision specifically provided that the
governing committee has to be elected every year by the
general body. The present executive committee was
elected in 2001, it is pointed out. I find that the
above matters call for detailed evidence and discussions
and are not envisaged to be adjudicated in a writ
proceedings. The counsel for the writ petitioner has
sought for a direction that no enhanced remuneration be
disbursed to the first defendant till the final
determination of the suit. I find that the circumstances
do not call for such a direction. All the same, the
lower court is directed to make every effort to
adjudicate the original suit expeditiously and at any
rate, dispose of the same within six months from the date
of receipt of this judgment.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
.JN
.SP 1
K.R.UDAYABHANU, @@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
JUDGE@@
AAAAAAAAA
mbu
.PA
((HDR 0
))
.HE 2
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J.@@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
……………………….
W.P.(C) No. of
J U D G M E N T @@
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
01.02.2005
……………………….