{"id":54927,"date":"2009-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-09-21T01:30:44","modified_gmt":"2018-09-20T20:00:44","slug":"sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana … on 14 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana … on 14 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCo.Pet.No. 40 of 2008()\n\n\n\n1. SRI.VAMADEVAN.N. AND OTHERS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM &\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :14\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                                       (C.R.)\n\n\n                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.\n              ........................................................................\n                          C.P. No. 40 OF 2008\n             .........................................................................\n                 Dated this the 14th September, 2009\n\n\n                                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      ‘Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam’ (‘Yogam’ in<\/p>\n
short) is sought to be wound up in this Company Petition.<\/p>\n
      2. The first respondent ‘Yogam’ is a Charitable Non-trading<\/p>\n
Company’ incorporated in 1903 under the Travancore Regulation<\/p>\n
I of 1063 M.E., corresponding to Act 6 of 1882 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Companies Act (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’).                                       The<\/p>\n
petitioners  were          elected           office         bearers           of      the   SNDP<\/p>\n
Unions\/Sakhas under the first respondent.                                    The case of the<\/p>\n
petitioners is that,             ever since assuming the office as the<\/p>\n
General Secretary of the ‘Yogam’, the second respondent had<\/p>\n
been functioning in a quite autocratic manner, suspending the<\/p>\n
petitioners and others from their office and also                                    bringing the<\/p>\n
Unions\/Sakhas       under the management of the Administrators,<\/p>\n
without any regard to the                  rules or procedures                      contemplated<\/p>\n
under the bye-laws of the ‘Yogam’. It is alleged that the affairs<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
of the ‘Yogam’ are being mismanaged; the funds are being<\/p>\n
misappropriated and there is complete oppression of minority<\/p>\n
members,      coupled with acts of fraud and such other illegal<\/p>\n
activities, in total disregard to the statutory prescriptions. The<\/p>\n
petitioners have approached this Court under Section        203(b)<\/p>\n
(ii), read with 433(f) of the Companies Act with the following<\/p>\n
prayers:\n<\/p>\n
            “a)   To appoint a committee of not less than<\/p>\n
            five members     to      take    over      the<\/p>\n
            administration and management of      SNDP<\/p>\n
            Yogam and institutions functioning under that<\/p>\n
            company;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            b)    To declare that respondents 1 to 4 are<\/p>\n
            disqualified from continuing as office bearers<\/p>\n
            of SNDP Yogam;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            c)    To direct respondents 2 to 4 to make<\/p>\n
            available to this Hon’ble Court true and<\/p>\n
            correct details of the income and expenditure<\/p>\n
            of the Yogam including Micro Finance Account<\/p>\n
            and amount received from Kerala State<\/p>\n
            Backward     Development     Corporation  and<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
         details of persons to whom such amounts<\/p>\n
         were distributed    from November 1996<\/p>\n
         onwards;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         d)   To direct the respondents to take<\/p>\n
         immediate steps for ordering elections in all<\/p>\n
         Unions and branches under Administrator<\/p>\n
         Control to have elected representatives and<\/p>\n
         to hand over the assets and management to<\/p>\n
         such       elected bodies    within   a time<\/p>\n
         frame;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
         e)   To render to this    Hon’ble Court the<\/p>\n
         correct and complete records and documents<\/p>\n
         which are maintained in connection with<\/p>\n
         micro-finance   operations   and    to direct<\/p>\n
         payments    to   the   needy   members     in<\/p>\n
         accordance with the stipulations of NABARD;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n\n         f)   To direct the 2nd respondent not to\n\n         alienate or dispose of any movable or\n\n         immovable properties of   SNDP         Yogam\n\n         without prior permission from this    Hon'ble\n\n         Court.\n\nC.P. No. 40 OF 2008\n\n                                4<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
           g)   In the alternative, the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
           Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam<\/p>\n
           be wound up by this Hon’ble Court under the<\/p>\n
           provisions of the Companies Act, 1956;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           h)   To appoint provisional liquidator to<\/p>\n
           preserve the    assets of the respondent<\/p>\n
           company; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           i)   To pass such other order or orders as<\/p>\n
           this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, appropriate<\/p>\n
           and just.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. When the above matter came up for admission before<\/p>\n
this court on 01.01.2009, another learned Single Judge of this<\/p>\n
Court ordered as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “Admitted      without     prejudice     to<\/p>\n
           contentions including on the question of<\/p>\n
           jurisdiction. Notice by Special Messenger. List<\/p>\n
           on 13.01.09 for consideration of the application<\/p>\n
           for interim reliefs. No immovable property of<\/p>\n
           the SNDP      Yogam shall be alienated        or<\/p>\n
           encumbered until the next date of hearing.”<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
Pursuant    to  service  of  notice,  the  respondents  entered<\/p>\n
appearance     and the matter has been brought up for further<\/p>\n
consideration, challenging the very question of maintainability,<\/p>\n
at the instance of the respondents 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
      4. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Sr. Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Company Petition<\/p>\n
is very much maintainable, simultaneously adding       that the<\/p>\n
doubts, if any, can be entertained only along with the merits of<\/p>\n
the case, particularly, since the matter has already been<\/p>\n
admitted by this Court. The learned Sr. Counsel referred to the<\/p>\n
sequence of events and also the relevant provisions of law, to<\/p>\n
sustain the said submission.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Mr. Nageswara Rao, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of the    first and second respondents submits that the<\/p>\n
Company Petition is not at all maintainable in view of the other<\/p>\n
effective, alternate remedy available and also by virtue of the<\/p>\n
clear mandate under sub section (2 )of Section 443 of the Act.<\/p>\n
It is also stated that ‘admission’ of the matter does not curtail<\/p>\n
the rights      of the respondents to challenge       the very<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
maintainability of the petition, particularly in view of the rider<\/p>\n
placed by the learned Judge while admitting the matter, holding<\/p>\n
that ‘admission’ is subject to maintainability. The learned Sr.<\/p>\n
Counsel referred to the relevant provisions in the Companies Act,<\/p>\n
which clearly deal with the rights and      liberties of the parties<\/p>\n
concerned, to have redressal in respect of the prayers made in<\/p>\n
the instant case at Sl.Nos. (a) to (f), pointing out that the prayer<\/p>\n
for ‘winding up’ has been sought for       at Sl.No.(g) only as an<\/p>\n
‘alternative’. Reliance is also placed on the very admission of the<\/p>\n
petitioner in Ground (D) under the head-‘Disappearance of<\/p>\n
Substratum’- given at running page 48 of the Company Petition.<\/p>\n
The learned Sr. Counsel also referred to the judicial precedents<\/p>\n
rendered by the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court and<\/p>\n
various other High Courts, to substantiate that the remedy by<\/p>\n
way of winding up under Section 433 (f) is not liable to be<\/p>\n
granted    in view of the other effective,        alternate remedy<\/p>\n
available and also for the fact that it is only sought for as ‘an<\/p>\n
alternative’ prayer. It is the specific case of the respondents 1<\/p>\n
and 2, as put forth by the learned Sr. Counsel, that ‘winding<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
up’ has been sought for, as an alternative prayer, only to<\/p>\n
sustain the prayer for    interference  under Section 203(b)(ii),<\/p>\n
which,    otherwise is not permissible,   unless ‘in the course of<\/p>\n
winding up’ of a Company.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   The first respondent ‘Yogam’ is a ‘Non-trading Public<\/p>\n
Limited Company’       deemed to be incorporated under the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Kerala    Non-trading   Companies Act,. 1961.<\/p>\n
The affairs of the first respondent are governed by            the<\/p>\n
Companies Act, by incorporation.     After  considering the rival<\/p>\n
submissions, this Court decided to hear the legal aspects as to<\/p>\n
the scope of the order passed at the time of       ‘admission'(the<\/p>\n
question of maintainability) before proceeding with the merits of<\/p>\n
the case and accordingly,     heard all  the  learned Counsel in<\/p>\n
detail.\n<\/p>\n
     7. Mr. Nageswara Rao, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the respondents 1 and 2 , explained the scheme of the Statute,<\/p>\n
particularly with reference to the nature and extent of the reliefs<\/p>\n
sought for.\n<\/p>\n
     8. Obviously, the prayers at Sl.Nos. (a) to (f) are with<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
regard to the mismanagement, fraud, oppression of minority,<\/p>\n
misappropriation and in turn to take over the administration and<\/p>\n
management of the ‘Yogam’, after declaring the respondents 1<\/p>\n
to 4, as disqualified from continuing in office. The above prayers<\/p>\n
are very much inter-connected and of course, based on the<\/p>\n
provisions under Section 203 (b)(ii), which is extracted below for<\/p>\n
the purpose of convenience of reference.\n<\/p>\n
           “203.     Power to restrain fraudulent persons<\/p>\n
           from managing companies:-(1) Where-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (a)   xx         xx         xx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (b) in the course of winding up a company it<\/p>\n
           appears that a person–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (i)   xx         xx   xx    xx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (ii) has otherwise been guilty, while an officer<\/p>\n
           of the company of any fraud or misfeasance in<\/p>\n
           relation to the company or of any branch of his<\/p>\n
           duty     to the company; the Court or the<\/p>\n
           Tribunal, as the case may be, may make an<\/p>\n
           order that that person shall not, without the<\/p>\n
           leave of the Court or the Tribunal, as the case<\/p>\n
           may be, be a director of , or in any way,<\/p>\n
           whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or<\/p>\n
           take part in the promotion, formation or<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
           management of a company, for such period not<\/p>\n
           exceeding five years as may be specified in the<\/p>\n
           order. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9. Obviously by virtue of the specific stipulation in the<\/p>\n
Statute, the power to restrain fraudulent persons from managing<\/p>\n
the companies as provided in the said provision can be exercised<\/p>\n
only in the course of winding up of a company. As such, the<\/p>\n
basic question to be considered is       whether the prayer for<\/p>\n
winding up,   inserted at Sl. No. (g) of the Writ Petition, is liable<\/p>\n
to be entertained.     As stated herein before, the prayer for<\/p>\n
winding up at Sl. No. (g) has been raised by the petitioner only<\/p>\n
as an ‘alternative prayer’. The description of the sequence of<\/p>\n
events and the facts and figures      more relate to the alleged<\/p>\n
misappropriation, mismanagement, fraud and oppression of the<\/p>\n
minority sector, which need not constitute or warrant a ‘winding<\/p>\n
up’ on the ground of ‘just and equitable reason’, as envisaged<\/p>\n
under Section 433(f).   The terms ‘just and equitable’ as they<\/p>\n
appear under Section 433(f) are not to be read as ‘ejusdem<\/p>\n
generis’ with the preceding words of the enactment (Halsbury’s<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
Laws of England, Vol. 7 (3)    IVth Edition 2004 Re-issue). It is<\/p>\n
in the nature of ‘last resort’, when other remedies are not<\/p>\n
efficacious   enough to protect the general interests of the<\/p>\n
Company.     In this context, it is also relevant to      note the<\/p>\n
pleading of the petitioners in the Company Petition, as to the<\/p>\n
foundation laid for pressing the relief of winding up, as contained<\/p>\n
in paragraph 12      and also in Ground “D” under the head<\/p>\n
‘Disappearance of Substratum’, which are extracted below:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 12:\n<\/p>\n
                 \"This    petition is necessitated on\n\n           account     of     gross      mismanagement,\n\n<\/pre>\n
           misappropriation of money, acts of fraud,<\/p>\n
           misconduct, diversion of funds, illegal and<\/p>\n
           ultra vires acts, oppression of minority<\/p>\n
           members of the Company by the 2nd<\/p>\n
           respondent in collusion with the Board of<\/p>\n
           Directors, office bearers and some of the<\/p>\n
           council members of the Company and their<\/p>\n
           henchmen who are indulging in acts of<\/p>\n
           mismanagement,           misfeasance        and<\/p>\n
           oppression. The affairs of the Company are<\/p>\n
           conducted in such a way to promote and<\/p>\n
           assist their kith and kin, in total exclusion of<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
           90% of the members of the Company, by<\/p>\n
           resorting to acts prejudicial to and destructive<\/p>\n
           of the very object of the Yogam.            The<\/p>\n
           following are the acts of fraud, misconduct,<\/p>\n
           oppression, mis-management and ultra vires<\/p>\n
           acts committed by the Board of         Directors<\/p>\n
           and Council members and office bearers of<\/p>\n
           the Yogam. ”\n<\/p>\n
\nGround ‘D’:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “The minority of members of the Company<\/p>\n
           has   completely    lost  confidence    in  the<\/p>\n
           majority of the Board of Directors of the 1st<\/p>\n
           respondent and there is no alternative for the<\/p>\n
           minority members to seek relief in the matter<\/p>\n
           except to invoke jurisdiction of this Hon’ble<\/p>\n
           Court for appropriate relief as a last resort, if<\/p>\n
           only circumstances warrant, order winding up<\/p>\n
           of the 1st respondent company.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10. From the above, it is very much clear that the basic<\/p>\n
grievance of th petitioners in respect of the reliefs sought for at<\/p>\n
Sl.Nos. (a) to (f) and the prayer for ‘winding up’ has been raised<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
stating that there is no other alternate remedy for the minority<\/p>\n
members, except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for<\/p>\n
appropriate reliefs as   the last resort, however, conceding in<\/p>\n
Ground “D” as noted above that, it was to be granted only if<\/p>\n
circumstances warranted the same.\n<\/p>\n
      11.   Considering the moot question put forth by the<\/p>\n
petitioners, as to whether the circumstances warrant ‘winding<\/p>\n
up’, as projected in Ground “D’ of the Company Petition, nothing<\/p>\n
else is seen pleaded specifically, so as to grant the remedy of<\/p>\n
‘winding up’ on just and equitable ground      as the ‘last resort’.<\/p>\n
In other words, is there any other alternate remedy for redressal<\/p>\n
of the grievance with regard to the reliefs at Sl.No. (a) to (f)<\/p>\n
and if any such remedy       is available , whether the same is<\/p>\n
efficacious enough or has any of the minority petitioners been<\/p>\n
prevented from availing the benefit thereunder, is not discernible<\/p>\n
from the pleadings on record.   As such, it has become necessary<\/p>\n
to   ascertain   whether    the contention of the petitioners in<\/p>\n
Ground ‘D’,   that there is no other alternate remedy for them is<\/p>\n
correct or sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
      12. Section 235(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 deals with<\/p>\n
the power of the Central Government to investigate the affairs of<\/p>\n
the Company on receipt of a report from the Registrar under Sub<\/p>\n
section (6) or (7) of Section 234. Sub section (2)(b) of the very<\/p>\n
same provision deals with such power conferred on the Tribunal<\/p>\n
in the case of a Company having no share capital(as in the<\/p>\n
instant case) where an application is received from not less than<\/p>\n
‘1\/5th’ of the persons on the Company’s register of members.<\/p>\n
The petitioner has no case that they moved the Tribunal by filing<\/p>\n
an application preferred by not less than 1\/5th of the persons<\/p>\n
on the Company’s register of members or that such course is not<\/p>\n
available or has been turned futile due to some or other reason,<\/p>\n
so as to make it ineffective.\n<\/p>\n
      13.    Without prejudice to the powers of the Central<\/p>\n
Government under Section 235,           it has been specifically<\/p>\n
stipulated under Section 237 that the Central Government      can<\/p>\n
exercise the powers of investigation into the Company’s affairs in<\/p>\n
other circumstances as well, as stipulated therein.<\/p>\n
      14. Admittedly, there is no case for the petitioners that<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
they have resorted to any such steps to persuade the Central<\/p>\n
Government to pursue such appropriate steps for redressal of<\/p>\n
their grievances and that the same did not yield any positive<\/p>\n
result.\n<\/p>\n
     15. In the case of oppression of the minority, the power is<\/p>\n
vested with the ‘Tribunal’ under Section 397 of the Act for<\/p>\n
granting necessary reliefs.    Similar power is vested with the<\/p>\n
Tribunal to deal with the situation of mismanagement as well,<\/p>\n
as provided under Section 398.         By virtue of the power<\/p>\n
specifically conferred under Section 397 and 398, if necessary<\/p>\n
application is preferred in the manner as specified therein, after<\/p>\n
considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal, if satisfied<\/p>\n
as to the ‘just and equitable’ reason to have the Company<\/p>\n
wound up, it can pass appropriate orders to meet the situation.<\/p>\n
The circumstances under which a petition can be moved before<\/p>\n
the Tribunal under Section     397 or 398 are stipulated under<\/p>\n
Section 399. Sub section (1)(b) of Section 399 clearly stipulates<\/p>\n
that in the case of a Company not having a share capital (as in<\/p>\n
the instant case ), the right to apply under section 397 or 398<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
will be available, if the application is preferred by not less than<\/p>\n
1\/5th of the total number of its members. To put it more clear,<\/p>\n
the petitioner, by virtue of the above statutory prescription is<\/p>\n
very much entitled to agitate the matter before the ‘Tribunal’ , if<\/p>\n
an application is preferred by 1\/5th of the total number of<\/p>\n
members of the first respondent ‘Yogam’. That apart, sub<\/p>\n
section (4) of Section 399 provides that the Central Government<\/p>\n
may, if in its opinion circumstances exist, which make it just<\/p>\n
and equitable to do so, authorise any member or members of<\/p>\n
the Company to apply to the Tribunal under Section 397 or 398,<\/p>\n
notwithstanding that the requirements of clause (a) or clause<\/p>\n
(b), (as the case may be) of sub section (1) are not fulfilled.<\/p>\n
Why the petitioners have not resorted to such an exercise and<\/p>\n
why they have shut their       eyes against the alternate remedy<\/p>\n
provided under the statute, rather remain to be obscure.<\/p>\n
      16.  The case of the petitioners, as      asserted    by the<\/p>\n
learned Sr. Counsel Mrs. Nalini        Chidambaram, is that the<\/p>\n
respondents cannot dictate terms to the petitioners and it is for<\/p>\n
the petitioners to choose the appropriate remedy and Forum,<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
when different remedies are available to the petitioners. When<\/p>\n
the petitioners assert that, it is by virtue of their discretion<\/p>\n
that they have chosen to approach this Court, by filing the<\/p>\n
Company Petition, seeking to wind up the first respondent on<\/p>\n
just and equitable ground, invoking the power under Section<\/p>\n
433(f) without resorting to the alternate remedy, the mandate<\/p>\n
under Section 443 (2) has also necessarily to be looked into,<\/p>\n
which provision is extracted below;.\n<\/p>\n
           \"443.   Powers     of  Tribunal  on  hearing\n\n           petition:-(1)    On hearing a winding     up\n\n           petition, the Tribunal may-\n\n           (a) xx     xx    cc\n\n           (b) xx     xx    xx\n\n           )     xx   xx    xx\n\n           (d) xx     xx    xx    xx\n\n<\/pre>\n
           (2) Where the petition is presented on the<\/p>\n
           ground that it is just and equitable that the<\/p>\n
           company should be wound up, the Tribunal<\/p>\n
           may refuse to make an order of winding up,<\/p>\n
           if it is of the    opinion  that some other<\/p>\n
           remedy is available to the petitioners and<\/p>\n
           that they are acting unreasonably in seeking<\/p>\n
           to have the company wound up instead of<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                17<\/span><\/p>\n
            pursuing that other remedy.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  17. This shows that unlike other grounds for sustaining the<\/p>\n
petition to wind up the Company as provided under Section<\/p>\n
433, if it is sought for on ‘just and equitable’ grounds under<\/p>\n
clause (f) of Section 433, the relief can be declined, if there is<\/p>\n
other alternate remedy and in the opinion of the Court, if the<\/p>\n
petitioners are acting    unreasonably seeking for ‘winding up’,<\/p>\n
instead of pursuing the alternative remedy.<\/p>\n
      18. The above issue had come up for consideration before<\/p>\n
the Apex Court, which has been considered and explained as per<\/p>\n
the    decision in     Hind    Overseas Private Limited vs.<\/p>\n
Raghunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla and<\/a> another [1976 (3)<\/p>\n
SCC 259]. The observations of the Apex Court in this regard<\/p>\n
are very much contained in paragraph 37, 38 and 44, which are<\/p>\n
extracted below.\n<\/p>\n
            “37.     Section 433(f) under which this<\/p>\n
            application has been made has to be read<\/p>\n
            with Section 443(2) of the Act. Under the<\/p>\n
            latter provision where the      petition is<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                               18<\/span><\/p>\n
         presented on the ground that it is just and<\/p>\n
         equitable that the company should be wound<\/p>\n
         up, the court may refuse to make an order of<\/p>\n
         winding up if it is of opinion that some other<\/p>\n
         remedy is     available to the petitioners and<\/p>\n
         that they are acting unreasonably in seeking<\/p>\n
         to have the company wound up instead of<\/p>\n
         pursuing that other remedy.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n         “38. Again under Sections 397 and 398 of<\/p>\n
         the Act there are preventive provisions in the<\/p>\n
         Act   as a safeguard against oppression in<\/p>\n
         management. These provisions also indicate<\/p>\n
         that relief under Section 433(f) based on the<\/p>\n
         just and equitable clause is in the nature of a<\/p>\n
         last resort when other remedies are not<\/p>\n
         efficacious enough to protect the general<\/p>\n
         interests of the company.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         “44. It is not a proper principle to encourage<\/p>\n
         hasty petitions of this nature without first<\/p>\n
         attempting to sort out the dispute and<\/p>\n
         controversy between the members in the<\/p>\n
         domestic forum in conformity with the<\/p>\n
         articles of association.      There must be<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 19<\/span><\/p>\n
            materials to show when ‘just and equitable’<\/p>\n
            clause is invoked, that it is just and equitable<\/p>\n
            not only to the persons applying for winding<\/p>\n
            up but also to the company and to all its<\/p>\n
            shareholders. The company court will have<\/p>\n
            to keep in mind the position of the company<\/p>\n
            as a whole and the interests of the<\/p>\n
            shareholders and see that they do not suffer<\/p>\n
            in a fight for power that ensues between two<\/p>\n
            groups. ”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        19.    In Malabar Industrial Comp. Ltd. vs. John<\/p>\n
Anthrapper<\/a> [1985] 57 Comp. Cases 717 (Ker.), a Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court , following the dictum      in Hind Overseas<\/p>\n
Private Limited vs Raghunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla and<\/a><\/p>\n
another [1976 (3) SCC 259] = [AIR 1976 SC 565] observed<\/p>\n
that under Section 397 and 398 of the Act, there are preventive<\/p>\n
provisions as a safeguard against oppression in management.<\/p>\n
These provisions also indicate that the relief under Section 433<\/p>\n
(f) based on the ‘just and equitable’ clauses is in the nature of<\/p>\n
‘last resort’, when other remedies are not efficacious enough<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                20<\/span><\/p>\n
to protect the general interest of   the Company.       It is also<\/p>\n
observed therein that, it is very much necessary to bear in mind<\/p>\n
that the relief under Section   433(f)  is in the nature of ‘last<\/p>\n
resort’, thus obliging the Court to  give   relief to the parties,<\/p>\n
when moved under the Section,           only under compelling<\/p>\n
circumstances.    Accordingly, relying on the mandate under<\/p>\n
Section   443(2), the appeal was allowed       and the Company<\/p>\n
Petition was dismissed    without prejudice to the rights of the<\/p>\n
petitioner to   take appropriate remedies     to safeguard    the<\/p>\n
interest as provided under the relevant provisions of the Statute.<\/p>\n
      20.  Later,   the issue came   up again for consideration<\/p>\n
before another learned Judge of this Court in Jose J. Kadavil<\/p>\n
and K.T. Mathew vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.<\/a> [(1986) 59<\/p>\n
Comp. Case 969 (Ker.)]. Following the dictum laid down by<\/p>\n
the Apex Court in       Hind    Overseas Private Limited vs<\/p>\n
Raghunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla and<\/a> another [1976 (3)<\/p>\n
SCC 259] and also the       observation  made by the      Division<\/p>\n
Bench in [(1985) 57 Comp. Case 717 (Ker.)], interference<\/p>\n
was declined in the Company Petition seeking to wind up the<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                   21<\/span><\/p>\n
Company on ‘just and equitable’ ground under Section 433(f),<\/p>\n
placing reliance on Section 443(2). The observations made by<\/p>\n
the learned Judge in paragraph 18 are very much relevant and<\/p>\n
hence it is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
            “18. I am in respectful agreement with the<\/p>\n
            dictum     laid down in A.P. Pothen’s case<\/p>\n
            [(1967) 37 Comp. Case 266; AIR 1968 Ker.<\/p>\n
            148 and George’s case (1965) 35. Comp.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Case 17; AIR 1964 Ker. 212, referred to<\/p>\n
            above.     The observations of the learned<\/p>\n
            Judge in these cases is a complete answer to<\/p>\n
            the contentions of the petitioners that they<\/p>\n
            do not have any effective remedy under<\/p>\n
            Sections 397 and 398 in view of the<\/p>\n
            limitations placed under Section 399 of the<\/p>\n
            Act and that this Court having admitted these<\/p>\n
            petitions, it is to be presumed that this Court<\/p>\n
            was satisfied that there was a prima facie<\/p>\n
            case and, therefore, this court is bound to<\/p>\n
            allow the petitioners to adduce evidence and<\/p>\n
            that an order under Sections 443(2) can be<\/p>\n
            passed only after taking evidence or at the<\/p>\n
            conclusion of the enquiry. The petitioners<\/p>\n
            have effective alternative remedy under<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                               22<\/span><\/p>\n
           Sections 397 and 398 and the materials on<\/p>\n
           record clearly indicate that they are acting<\/p>\n
           unreasonably in seeking       to have the<\/p>\n
           company wound up instead of pursing that<\/p>\n
           other remedy. The petitioners can also file a<\/p>\n
           suit in this respect against the company.\n<\/p>\n
           These petitions are, therefore, liable to be<\/p>\n
           dismissed under Section 443 (2) of the<\/p>\n
           Companies Act.”\n<\/p>\n
     21. A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh<\/p>\n
has also taken a similar view in  K. Mohan Babu vs. Heritage<\/p>\n
Foods India Ltd and others [(2001) 5 ALD 800], whereby<\/p>\n
the Company Petition seeking to wind up the Company on ‘just<\/p>\n
and equitable’ grounds under Section 433(f)      was dismissed,<\/p>\n
referring to the alternate remedy available under Sections 397<\/p>\n
and 398, read with the power under Section 443(2) . Exactly<\/p>\n
similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of the High<\/p>\n
Court of Rajasthan as well, in Takshila Hospital Ltd. and<\/p>\n
Kishan Singh Deora vs. Dr. Jagmohan Mathur ([2003]<\/p>\n
115 Comp. Case 343 (Raj.)<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                  23<\/span><\/p>\n
      22. With regard to the submission made by the learned Sr.<\/p>\n
Counsel Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, that the question of<\/p>\n
maintainability is no more liable to be considered in isolation,<\/p>\n
(without considering the       merits), the petition having been<\/p>\n
admitted on 01.01.2009, it is to be noted that the order passed<\/p>\n
by this Court at the time of admission was rather qualified, in<\/p>\n
so far as the matter was admitted “without prejudice to<\/p>\n
contentions including on the question of jurisdiction”. Learned<\/p>\n
Sr. Counsel submitted that the ‘jurisdiction\/maintainability’<\/p>\n
contemplated therein was only with regard to the availability of<\/p>\n
‘arbitration clause’ and not with regard to anything else.<\/p>\n
      23. The learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. Nageswara Rao appearing<\/p>\n
on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, submits that the above<\/p>\n
proposition is not at all correct or sustainable, particularly in view<\/p>\n
of the fact that the respondents were not available when the<\/p>\n
matter had come up for admission before the learned Judge and<\/p>\n
that such a ‘rider’ was     imposed    while admitting the matter,<\/p>\n
with a specific view to see that the consequential proceedings,<\/p>\n
particularly   as to the publication     in the   dailies  regarding<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                  24<\/span><\/p>\n
winding up of the proceedings,       could be kept in abeyance for<\/p>\n
the time being; lest any such steps without hearing the other<\/p>\n
side should lead to unpleasant events and irreparable hardship,<\/p>\n
if the claims were not genuine.         The learned Counsel also<\/p>\n
submitted that ‘jurisdiction\/maintainability’ is not confined to the<\/p>\n
availability of ‘arbitration clause’ alone and that, it is equally<\/p>\n
applicable on the basis of other alternate remedy, as provided<\/p>\n
under the very same statute.        Reliance is also placed on the<\/p>\n
decision   rendered     by   this  Court   in  Geroge vs. The<\/p>\n
Athiamattam Rubber Co. Ltd. Thodupuzha [AIR 1964 KER.<\/p>\n
212]. The observations made by Shri P.T. Raman Nair. J., in<\/p>\n
paragraph No. 2 of the above decision are very much relevant<\/p>\n
and hence extracted below.\n<\/p>\n
                  “The very institution of a winding up<\/p>\n
            petition against a      company more so its<\/p>\n
            advertisement, adversely affects the reputation<\/p>\n
            of   the   company,     and,  if  done   without<\/p>\n
            reasonable and probable cause, is a       wrong<\/p>\n
            which can be restrained by suit. It is also the<\/p>\n
            duty of the Court before admitting a winding<\/p>\n
            up petition, especially one brought by a<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                25<\/span><\/p>\n
         contributory, to satisfy itself that there are<\/p>\n
         prima facie grounds, and it is well-settled that<\/p>\n
         even after the Court has admitted a petition,<\/p>\n
         it can, on being moved for the purpose by the<\/p>\n
         company or some other interested person, stay<\/p>\n
         proceedings and revoke the admission.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               Rule 96 of the Companies (Court)Rules,<\/p>\n
         which deals with the admission of winding up<\/p>\n
         petitions and directions as to advertisement,<\/p>\n
         recognises this, for, it says that the judge may,<\/p>\n
         if he thinks fit, direct notice to be given to the<\/p>\n
         company before giving        directions as to the<\/p>\n
         advertisement of the petition-the hearing to be<\/p>\n
         given to the company is not for the purpose of<\/p>\n
         deciding the manner of the advertisement but<\/p>\n
         for deciding whether the advertisement should<\/p>\n
         be made at all and the petition proceeded with.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (See in this connection Cercle Restaurant<\/p>\n
         Castiglione Co. v. Lavery (1881)18 Ch D 555 ,<\/p>\n
         In re A Co. (1894)2 Ch. 349, in the matter of<\/p>\n
         Pioneer Bank Ltd. ILR 39 Bom. 16: AIR 1914<\/p>\n
         Bom. 190) W.I. Theatres             v. Associated<\/p>\n
         Bombay Cinemas        Ltd. AIR 1959 Bom. 170,<\/p>\n
         Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Smt. Abnash<\/p>\n
         Kaur, (1961) 31 Com. Cas. 587; (AIR 1961<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 26<\/span><\/p>\n
            Punj 505) and Charles Forte Investments Ltd.<\/p>\n
            v. Amanda, (1963) 3 WLR 662).\n<\/p>\n
            In fact the maintainability of the application<\/p>\n
            made by the Company is not questioned, nor is<\/p>\n
            it suggested that I would be wrong in hearing<\/p>\n
            the company before deciding        whether the<\/p>\n
            winding up petition should be admitted or not.”<\/p>\n
      24. From the above decision, it is very much clear that<\/p>\n
the admission of a Company Petition is not a bar for hearing the<\/p>\n
‘jurisdiction\/maintainability’. More so, when the very order dated<\/p>\n
01.01.2009 passed by the learned Judge of this Court, at the<\/p>\n
time of admitting the matter, was specific and qualified as dealt<\/p>\n
with hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
      25. Mr.N.N. Sugunapalan, learned Sr. Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the third respondent, besides supporting the contentions<\/p>\n
raised from the part of the first and second respondents, placed<\/p>\n
reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in       Palghat<\/p>\n
Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. T.V. Chandran (Ker.<\/a> )          [(1994) 79<\/p>\n
Comp. Case 213] where it was held:\n<\/p>\n
            (i) that even a company which was not doing
\n      business could form the subject matter of      action
\n      under section 397 and 398 of the Act;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                27<\/span><\/p>\n
          (ii) that merely on conduct of the Directors in
\n     misappropriating the funds of the company an order
\n     for winding up the company would not be just and
\n     equitable. In addition to such misconduct     further
\n     circumstances must exist which render it desirable
\n     in the interest of share holders that the company
\n     should be wound up; and\n<\/p>\n
          (iii)  that Section 397 of the Companies Act
\n     1956 is intended to     avoid winding up      and to
\n     mitigate and alleviate     oppression. Relief under
\n     section 397 of the Act is geared to help the members
\n     who were oppressed. Relief under Section 398 of the
\n     Act is geared to save the company and it is in the
\n     interest of the Company       alone and not of any
\n     particular member\/members. Oppression is the core
\n     element to be proved and the nature of the
\n     oppression to be tested in the context of the “cause
\n     for winding up”. Courts have to decide on the facts
\n     of each case as to whether there is a real cause of
\n     action under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act.<\/p>\n
The   learned Sr. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision<\/p>\n
rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court [Panaji<\/p>\n
Bench (Goa)] in      Daulat Makanmal Luthria v. Solitaire<\/p>\n
Hotels [(1993) 76 Company Cases 215]. In the judgment<\/p>\n
rendered by Mr. K. Sukumaran (J), on behalf of the Bench , it has<\/p>\n
been specifically noted that a winding up has to be resorted to,<\/p>\n
only when the other means of healing an ailing Company are of<\/p>\n
absolutely no avail.     When remedies      are provided by the<\/p>\n
Statute for matters concerning the management and running of<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                28<\/span><\/p>\n
a Company, the extreme and irretrievable step of ‘winding up’<\/p>\n
must be resorted to, only in very compelling circumstances.<\/p>\n
      26. Mr. Mohan Pulikkal, the learned Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the 5th respondent submits that the petitioners are totally<\/p>\n
incompetent to prefer    the Petition,  in view of the mandate<\/p>\n
under section 439 of the Act.   A person intending to prefer an<\/p>\n
application to wind up,     has to be    a person coming under<\/p>\n
Section 439.   It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the<\/p>\n
petitioners do not come in any of the categories (a) to (g) of<\/p>\n
sub section (1) of Section 439.     It is also asserted that the<\/p>\n
petitioners do not constitute ‘contributories’ as envisaged under<\/p>\n
Section 439(1)(c) , in view of the specific definition of the term<\/p>\n
“contributory” as given under Section 428, pointing out that, in<\/p>\n
the instant case, the first respondent is ‘not limited by shares’<\/p>\n
but by ‘guarantee’. Interference is sought to be declined, also<\/p>\n
referring to the decision rendered by this Court In re SNDP<\/p>\n
Yogam, Quilon (1970 KLT 365).\n<\/p>\n
      27. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Sr. Counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, in response to the above submissions, referred to<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                29<\/span><\/p>\n
Sections 3 and 7 of the Kerala Non Trading Companies Act 1961,<\/p>\n
which are stated as very much applicable to the first respondent<\/p>\n
‘Yogam’ and asserted that,    by virtue of the specific stipulation<\/p>\n
that the provisions of the Companies Act are to be taken with<\/p>\n
modifications as specified, the members of the first respondent<\/p>\n
are very much entitled to      prefer the Company Petition and<\/p>\n
whether the petitioners are ‘contributories’ or not is not relevant.<\/p>\n
Mr. Rajan Bau, the learned Counsel appearing for some of the<\/p>\n
respondents submits that applicability of the Companies Act and<\/p>\n
the extent of the modification are       specifically dealt with in<\/p>\n
Section 3 itself and that the modification could only be to the<\/p>\n
extent as specified in the Schedule and nothing more.        In any<\/p>\n
view of the matter, this does not appear to be an essential issue<\/p>\n
to decide the fate of the present case, in view of the other<\/p>\n
more glittering grounds .\n<\/p>\n
     28. The 7th respondent , Registrar of Companies has filed a<\/p>\n
Report, pursuant to the Order dated 12.02.2009 passed by this<\/p>\n
Court, stating that    three members of the first respondent<\/p>\n
‘Yogam” had moved a petition under Section 399(4) of the Act<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 30<\/span><\/p>\n
before the Central Government (Ministry of Corporate Affairs,<\/p>\n
New Delhi), seeking permission\/sanction from the Central<\/p>\n
Government for making an application before the Addl. Principal<\/p>\n
Bench of the Company Law Board at Chennai for the relief under<\/p>\n
Section 397\/398 of the Act      and that,    after considering the<\/p>\n
same, the      Central Government observed that the           first<\/p>\n
respondent ‘Yogam’ was deemed to be incorporated under the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Kerala Non Trading Companies Act, 1961 and<\/p>\n
therefore the petition filed before the Central Government    was<\/p>\n
dismissed   being non-admissible     under the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Companies Act       1956, but with liberty to approach the<\/p>\n
Government of Kerala for remedy under the relevant provisions<\/p>\n
of the Kerala Non Trading Companies Act 1961, vide Annexure<\/p>\n
R7(1) order dated 23.08.2005.        It is also pointed out in the<\/p>\n
said report that the 7th respondent had received an application<\/p>\n
from the first respondent       to transfer the records of the<\/p>\n
Company, kept in the office,       to the office of the Inspector<\/p>\n
General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram as per Section 6<\/p>\n
of the Kerala Non Trading Companies Act, 1961, vide Annexure<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 31<\/span><\/p>\n
R7(2) application dated 02.10.2005. The matter was taken up<\/p>\n
with    the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi and on<\/p>\n
obtaining Sanction, vide letter dated 23.11.2007 [Annexure R7<\/p>\n
(3)], all the records of the Company(1st respondent Yogam) were<\/p>\n
transferred to the Inspector General of Registration, Government<\/p>\n
of Kerala, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram on 16.01.2009, vide<\/p>\n
Annexure R7(4). It has been further pointed out in paragraph<\/p>\n
No.5 of the said Report     dated 27.02.2009 that no return has<\/p>\n
been filed by the subject Company subsequent to the transfer of<\/p>\n
the entire records to the Inspector General of Registration on<\/p>\n
16.01.2009 and that the Balance Sheet filed by the Company<\/p>\n
was made upto 31.03.1999, which was filed in the office on<\/p>\n
02.07.2001.\n<\/p>\n
      29. In the above facts and circumstances, particularly in<\/p>\n
view of availability of other efficacious alternate remedy for the<\/p>\n
petitioners and in view of the clear mandate under sub section<\/p>\n
(2) of Section 443 and further in view of the law declared by the<\/p>\n
Apex Court in Hind Overseas Private Limited vs Raghunath<\/p>\n
Prasad Jhunjhunwalla and<\/a> another (1976 (3) SCC 259)<\/p>\n
C.P. No. 40 OF 2008<\/p>\n
                                 32<\/span><\/p>\n
as well as by the Division Bench of this Court and other High<\/p>\n
Courts (cited supra), interference in the Company Petition is<\/p>\n
declined and it is held that the Company Petition is not<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
      30. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the<\/p>\n
merits or as to the sustainability      of the factual contentions<\/p>\n
raised from the part of the petitioners in any manner and the<\/p>\n
dismissal of the Company Petition will not bar the way of the<\/p>\n
petitioners in resorting to other appropriate alternative remedy<\/p>\n
for redressal of their grievances.\n<\/p>\n
      The Company Petition is dismissed accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
\n                                          JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
lk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana … on 14 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Co.Pet.No. 40 of 2008() 1. SRI.VAMADEVAN.N. AND OTHERS … Petitioner Vs 1. SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM & … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana ... on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana ... on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-20T20:00:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana … on 14 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-20T20:00:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":5509,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana ... on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-20T20:00:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana … on 14 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana ... on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana ... on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-20T20:00:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana … on 14 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-20T20:00:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009"},"wordCount":5509,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009","name":"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana ... on 14 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-20T20:00:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-vamadevan-n-and-others-vs-sree-narayana-dharma-paripalana-on-14-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri.Vamadevan.N. And Others vs Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana … on 14 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54927\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}