Smt. Bonani Ghosh and ors. Vs. Sri Rajat Chakraborty and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1061292
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnJul-04-2012
JudgeI. P. MUKERJI
AppellantSmt. Bonani Ghosh and ors.
RespondentSri Rajat Chakraborty and ors.
Excerpt:
ata no.9 of 2011 in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction original side smt. bonani ghosh & ors.versus sr.rajat chakraborty & ors.before: the hon’ble justice i.p.mukerj.date:4. h july 2012 appearance: mr.purnashis gupta, advocate mr.anirban ghosh, advocate for the petitioner a trust was created for the care of dogs and other animals. it was called “foundation for animal welfare & environmental studies”.the trust was executed on 15th october 2008. the firs.trustees were: (a) shri rajat chakraborty, (b) shri dilip ghosh, (c) shri pankaj parekh, (d) shri swapan kr. ganguly and (e) shri subrata sinha ray. according to the deed of trust the firs.trustees were to hold office for life. the maximum number of trustees could be 21. subsequent trustees could be appointed by 3/4th majority of the existing trustees. this is an application by applicants describing themselves to be the trustees. none was the original trustee. in fact by this application removal of the original trustees is sought. the records say that one of them mr.pankaj parekh relinquished his office earlier. none appears for the respondents even at the second call. but they have filed an affidavit-in-opposition. since it is a trust for animal welfare and removal of trustees was prayed, i went through the affidavit-in-opposition to appreciate the case. it is stated in paragraph 8 that the appointment of petitioner nos.4 and 5 as trustees is disputed. moreover, it is stated by the firs.respondent in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition that he contributed rs.1,36,000/- from his personal fund for purchase of six cottahs of land for the use of the trust at baruipur. furthermore, the second and fourth respondents had contributed rs.1 lakh each. not my findings. there is no contradiction of the above assertions made in the affidavit-in-opposition. i have no doubt in my mind that the settlors.as animallovers created the trust for the care and medical treatment of dogs and other animals including providing them with shelter. when such is the purpose of the trust, the court would expect substantial evidence to be laid before it to be convinced that the trustees should be changed. sufficient evidence is not before the court. it is a matter of great concern that the petitioners want discharge of all the original trustees making imputations against them. for those reasons, this application is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioners to take out a new application with proper materials which may include the materials relied on in this application. any subsisting interim order will continue for three weeks from date. all parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. (i.p.mukerji, j.) r. bose ar(cr)
Judgment:

ATA No.9 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Smt.

Bonani Ghosh & ORS.Versus Sr.Rajat Chakraborty & ORS.Before: The Hon’ble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date:

4. h July 2012 Appearance: Mr.Purnashis Gupta, Advocate Mr.Anirban Ghosh, Advocate for the petitioner A trust was created for the care of dogs and other animals.

It was called “Foundation for Animal Welfare & Environmental Studies”.The trust was executed on 15th October 2008.

The fiRs.trustees were: (a) Shri Rajat Chakraborty, (b) Shri Dilip Ghosh, (c) Shri Pankaj Parekh, (d) Shri Swapan Kr.

Ganguly and (e) Shri Subrata Sinha Ray.

According to the Deed of Trust the fiRs.trustees were to hold office for life.

The maximum number of trustees could be 21.

Subsequent trustees could be appointed by 3/4th majority of the existing trustees.

This is an application by applicants describing themselves to be the trustees.

None was the original trustee.

In fact by this application removal of the original trustees is sought.

The records say that one of them Mr.Pankaj Parekh relinquished his office earlier.

None appears for the respondents even at the second call.

But they have filed an affidavit-in-opposition.

Since it is a trust for animal welfare and removal of trustees was prayed, I went through the affidavit-in-opposition to appreciate the case.

It is stated in paragraph 8 that the appointment of petitioner Nos.4 and 5 as trustees is disputed.

Moreover, it is stated by the fiRs.respondent in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition that he contributed Rs.1,36,000/- from his personal fund for purchase of six cottahs of land for the use of the trust at Baruipur.

Furthermore, the second and fourth respondents had contributed Rs.1 lakh each.

not my findings.

There is no contradiction of the above assertions made in the affidavit-in-opposition.

I have no doubt in my mind that the settlORS.as animallovers created the trust for the care and medical treatment of dogs and other animals including providing them with shelter.

When such is the purpose of the trust, the Court would expect substantial evidence to be laid before it to be convinced that the trustees should be changed.

Sufficient evidence is not before the Court.

It is a matter of great concern that the petitioners want discharge of all the original trustees making imputations against them.

For those reasons, this application is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioners to take out a new application with proper materials which may include the materials relied on in this application.

Any subsisting interim order will continue for three weeks from date.

All parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) R.

Bose AR(CR)