JAGADEESHA S vs. DR. GONCHIGIRI NARAYANA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

WRIT PETITION NO. 56194/2015 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

JAGADEESHA S., S/O G. SRINIVASALU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.98, MARUTI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PEENYA II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 058

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI T. P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV.)

AND:

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.16/21, 3B PEARL PALACE APARTMENT, PALACE CROSS ROAD, CHAKRAVARTHI LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 020

ALSO AT R/AT NO.8, RED OAK COURT, MOLINE ILLINOIS - 61265, USA

RESPONDENT NO. 4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO.1344, 3RD CROSS, MRHB COLONY, VIJAYANAGAR NORTH, BANGALORE – 560 079.

PEENYA, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 058. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H. N. SHASHIDHARA, ADV. FOR C/R-4 CP NO. 7740/2015)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S. NO. 1784/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 2. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) have filed a suit in Original Suit No.1784/2012 against the defendant (petitioner herein) praying the Court to direct the first defendant to furnish books of accounts right from August 2005 till the date, in respect of Sri Venkateshwara Education Trust registered on 10.8.2005; and for permanent injunction and for such other reliefs. Interalia, the plaintiffs have also filed an application I.A.No.9 under Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to direct the

defendants to handover the documents as mentioned in Sl. Nos.1 to 26 in the list appended to the application. 3. The trial Court after hearing both the parties on IA No.9, has directed the first defendant in the following manner: “The first defendant is directed to handover the income tax returns for the year 2012-13, 2013- 14 and 2014-15 audited by the Chartered Accountant and also to refund Rs.16,20,000/- which has been drawn by him from the Axis Bank, Chinnappa Layout Nelamangala Branch, from the account of the trust and to account for the debit and credit in the said account which has been closed on 25.10.2014. The first defendant was also directed to hand over all other documents, files, books, lease agreement etc., belonging to the trust which are in his custody immediately. Regarding not handing over of the charge of the books, goods, amount etc., by the first defendant, the 4th plaintiff shall

verify in the office and then give the details to the Court separately.” Consequently, IA No.9 was partly allowed. Questioning the said order, the first defendant/petitioner is before this Court. 4. Though the matter has been contested, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that in the event if this Court comes to the conclusion that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed, he may be permitted to deposit the amount and handover the document as directed by the trial Court within six months from today. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent strenuously countered the argument and submitted that, the trial Court after considering all the aspects has definitely come to the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay that amount and the documents. He, in fact submits that no time shall be given to the defendant as he has already taken lot of time in handing

over the charge by virtue of the order dated 3.11.2014 passed in CCC No.1155/2014. 6. In view of the above said submissions, it is seen that this Court in MFA No.1477/2013 C/w. MFA No.1478/2013 has restrained the first defendant from acting as the Secretary of Sri Venkateshwara Education Trust registered on 10.8.2005, pending disposal of the suit and plaintiff No.4 Smt. Anasuya Ramakrishna who is the resident of Bangalore shall be appointed as the Secretary of the Trust and directed her to perform the duties as Secretary. The fact that once this Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant should not perform as a Secretary of the said Trust, it is his bounden duty to hand over all the documents pertaining to the said Trust, but he has not handed over the charge as well as the documents and the materials pertaining to the Trust. In this connection, the plaintiffs have also approached this Court by way of contempt petition in CCC No.1155/2011, wherein the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that on 31.10.2014, the first defendant took charge of the institution by taking over 17 items as per the list appended

therein under a Mahazar and that the Deputy Registrar of City Civil Court made a statement that the petitioner herein has handed over the charge of the post of Secretary to the first defendant. After taking over the charge, the first defendant has verified the accounts and the documents pertaining to the Trust and thereafter, she came to know that the petitioner has not paid Rs.16,20,000/- which was withdrawn, as it is shown as the cash drawn by self and further the defendant No.1 has not furnished all the documents pertaining to the Trust particularly the Income Tax returns and other documents which are shown in the list annexed to the application. Therefore, seeking that direction, the said application has been filed. Though the defendant has filed objections to the said application, but he cannot deny the proceedings already taken place before this Court by way of two MFAs. and the CCC proceedings, as noted supra. 7. When it is made abundantly clear from the above said facts and circumstances of the case that, the defendant has to handover the charge. When once he hands over the charge of the said Trust, it is his bounden

duty to handover each and every thing pertaining to the said Trust. Therefore, the trial Court after examining all the materials produced by the plaintiff has come to the conclusion that the defendant No.1 has to pay an amount of Rs.16,20,000/- and also hand over the Income Tax returns for the above said period as noted above with all other documents pertaining to the Trust. 8.

Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the defence defendant No.1, at this stage before this Court has no legs to stand. Hence, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. However, as the learned counsel at the fag end of his argument has submitted that he needs a short accommodation for payment of the said amount. Further, he would return all the documents as directed by the trial Court without any un-necessary delay in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the above said submissions, I pass the following:

ORDER

The Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.16,20,000/- before the trial Court without fail within eight weeks from today however within fifteen days, he shall handover all the documents pertaining to the Trust as ordered by the trial Court to the plaintiff – Trust.

Sd/- JUDGE

PL*