MANISHA COMMERCIAL LIMITED Vs. N R DONGRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 contained a prayer for the issuance of mandatory injunction against Defendant No.1, directing him to vote in favour of the Resolution proposed in the notice for the A.G.M. Scheduled to be held on June, 10,1999 or any adjourned meeting thereof and/or to give a praxy in favour of he Plaintiff's representative of the A.G.M. for that date. Since this application came up for consideration before me after this date, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent application being I.A. 9803/1999. The present application has therefore, not been argued since the subsequent application was considered to be comprehensive. Without in any way prejudicing the Plaintiff's cause, and subject to all just exceptions, this Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. I.A. 9804 of 1999

(2.) The facts of the present case pose little controversy. This situation has prompted the presentation of an application of the passing of a decree on admissions, under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Plaintiff has submitted that admittedly the Plaintiff is the sole beneficiary of the Manisha Benefit Trust, that Defendant No. 1 is its Sole Trustee, and that the corpus of the Trust comprises 11 per cent of the shares of Defendant No. 2 of which the remaining 49 per cent is held by the Charat Ram Group and 40 per cent by Defendant No.1. He also conceded that it is not the Plaintiff's case that Defendant No. 1 had committed any acts that tantamount to breach of the trust reposed in him, or that Defendant No. 1 had not paid the usefuct of the Trust to the sole beneficiary.

(3.) The Trust was established on 22.11.1991 by a Deed of that date in which the Settler had handed over a sum of Rs,. 10,000.00 to the Trustee (Defendant No. 1). It is from these funds that the 11 per cent shareholding of Defendant No. 2 has been acquired for the Trust. The Deed then mentions that Defendant No. 1 shall be the Trustee and that the objects are the receipt of income, dividends, interest and donations etc. which are to be given to the beneficiary (Plaintiff). It is significant to note that the duration of the Trust is explicitly stated to be for a period of 99 years or such earlier period as may be determined by the Trustee. He has also been empowered to nominate a Trustee in his stead, which is indeed an unusual terms. Interpreted along with the fact that the Trust was stated to be irrevocable it is prima facie clear that the intention of the Settler was that the Trust should be exclusively managed by its Trustee/Defendant No.1. The prayers contained in the plaint and in the application are therefore irreconcilably contrary to the terms of the Trust Deed.