Court's Power To Issue Directions For A Trust Not Independent Of Scheme Framed In Its Respect Under Section 92 CPC: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that finality of a decree does not preclude a court settling scheme under Section 92 CPC from modifying it and that the court's power to amend the scheme or to issue directions for effective functioning of a Trust is derived from the scheme itself.The Division Bench comprising Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and Johnson John was considering the scope of its jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the affairs of the Trust. In course, it analyzed a scheme framed w.r.t. the Trust under Section 92 CPC, which was amended by the court from time to time.As per original Clause 34 of the Scheme, Board members of the Trust could approach the High Court to seek appropriate modifications of the Scheme or other directions. However, the Clause was amended and jurisdiction of the court limited to modifications of the Scheme. Later, a Division Bench of the court had introduced Clause 34A to the Scheme, which allowed members to approach the court against office bearers if they violated provisions of the Trust or committed breach of trust. Of the two judges constituting the Bench, one had given a concurring opinion with a caveat that Clause 34A will not enable anyone to seek any of the reliefs set out in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 92(1) CPC.The petitioners, being Board members of Sree Narayana Trusts, had approached the High Court invoking Clause 34A of the Scheme framed under Section 92 CPC for redressal of their grievances against office bearers of the Trust. They urged that Clause 34A was specifically introduced for resolving grievances of members against officers bearers of the Trust.On the other hand, the respondents submitted that reliefs sought in the petition could not be granted under Clause 34A. They relied on the above-mentioned caveat to argue that the special jurisdiction case was not maintainable.The Bench noted that under the initial Clause 34, the court could issue directions, but subsequently, this jurisdiction was limited.“It is seen that it is taking the view that Clause 34 of the Scheme as it stood initially has unnecessarily led to enormous litigation which is not conducive for the satisfactory functioning of the trust under the Scheme and that it is unnecessary to enable anyone to approach this Court for interpreting or clarifying any of the provisions in the scheme, that this Court trimmed down the authority reserved with the court in terms of Clause 34 of the Scheme to issue directions.”Resolving the issue of caveat introduced by the concurring judge in order whereby Clause 34A was introduced, the court said,"A concurring opinion has to be construed as part of the order itself, and it has to be presumed that the Judge who delivered the order, agreed to the view expressed in the concurring opinion, for if the Judges mean to differ in their views, the order would not have been rendered at all on behalf of the Bench."It was held that Clause 34A of the Scheme was to be understood with the rider that it did not enable anyone to approach the court seeking the reliefs set out in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 92(1) CPC, and with the further rider that while exercising the power under that provision, the general power outside of or independent of the scheme will not be available to the court."...the finality of the decree does not preclude the court settling the scheme from issuing directions for the effective functioning of the trust in the interest of the administration of the trust. But it has to be remembered that as the suit comes to an end when the decree is passed, the authority of the court to amend the scheme and to issue directions for the effective functioning of the trust is derived from the scheme itself and the court has no general power outside of or independent of the scheme in dealing with such matters".Being of the view that the reliefs sought by the present petitioners could not be granted, as they were outside the scope of Clause 34A, the court concluded,“The special jurisdiction case, in the circumstances, is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners or any one of them from seeking appropriate amendments in the Scheme, so as to prevent the office bearers of the Trust from committing any act which would amount to breach of trust. It is also made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioners or any of them from seeking appropriate reliefs in appropriate proceedings in respect of the matters covered by this case.”Counsels for petitioners: Senior Advocate S.V. Balakrishna Iyer and Advocate D. Anil KumarCounsels for respondents: Senior Advocates Nandakumara Menon, Udaya Holla and N.N. Sugunapalan with Advocates A.N. Rajan Babu, Smitha. S. Pillai, Rajesh Narayan Narayan, P.K. Ravisankar, S. Sujin, T.I. Abdul Salam, M.G. Karthikeyan, C.D. Anil, M.G. Karthikeyan, A.N. Rajan Babu, P.K. Manojkumar, Alice Thomas, P. Gopalakrishnan, A.R. Easwar Lal,...

Court's Power To Issue Directions For A Trust Not Independent Of Scheme Framed In Its Respect Under Section 92 CPC: Kerala High Court

Tellmy Jolly

Tags