Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 2179/19 in SU 1641/19 1 C.R.8
MHCC010060962019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2179 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 1641 OF 2019
Mr. Shamsher Balram Talwar and Anr. ] ...Plaintiffs.
Versus
State of Maharashtra ]…Defendant.
Appearances:
Adv. Vikas Mishra for plaintiff.
Adv. Suraj Kudalkar for defendant/State.
CORAM : V.G. RAGHUWANSHI
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.08)
DATE : 04/10/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Plaintiff filed this notice of motion for temporary injunction
restraining defendant from interfering in the activities of institute of
plaintiff No.2 including education institute known as Kolwada Sanatan
Dharm Sabha Education Society and Sanatan Dharm High School and
Junior College except by following due process of law. It is contention of
the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is secretary of plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff
No.2 is a trust conducting activities pertaining to temple on plot No.353
and 356 in G.T.B. Nagar, Mumbai-37 and also an educational institute
known as Shri Sanatan Dharm Sabha Geeta Bhavan Hari Mandir.
2. There were dispute between trustees. Shri. Sushil Phull filed a
petition in Hon'ble High Court. Said writ petition was amicably settled
-- 1 of 7 --
NM 2179/19 in SU 1641/19 2 C.R.8
by consent terms. Plaintiff No.1 did not subscribe to those consent
terms. He challenged validity of those consent terms in a Writ Petition
No.440/2019 pending before Hon'ble High Court. During that period,
Kishor Sehgal filed a suit bearing Stamp No.5643/2019 before this
Court. Plaintiff in this case is defendant No.2 in aforesaid case.
3. Consent terms filed before Hon'ble High Court show that
plaintiffs are in control of temple and education institute, Kolwada
Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society and Shri Sanatan Dharm High
School and Junior College. However, some interested persons
approached officers of defendant and therefore, plaintiff No.1 was
called for inquiry by the officers on 09.06.2019. Plaintiff No.1 was
detained for sometime. They directed plaintiff No.1 to remove himself
from management of said two institutes and in any case remove himself
from education institute immediately on Monday, failing which they will
arrest plaintiff No.1 for having illegally taken over management of said
institute. Police officers are not supposed to interfere into civil disputes.
Plaintiff apprehends disturbance in management of said institute by
defendants. Therefore, plaintiff approached this Court and filed this suit
for injunction. Plaintiff prayed accordingly.
4. Defendant appeared and filed its reply. Defendant submitted that
suit is bad for want of statutory notice. It is without cause of action and
this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. One Harish Uppal, the
General Secretary of Shri Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education
Society lodged report that he was elected General Secretary of said
society. He runs Shri Sanatan Dharm Sabha High School and Junior
College, Sion-Koliwada, Mumbai. There is a society namely Shri
Sanatan Dharm Sabha Geeta Bhavan Hari Mandir. They are looking
after their day to day affairs. Harish Uppal was General Secretary
-- 2 of 7 --
NM 2179/19 in SU 1641/19 3 C.R.8
during period 2014 to February 2019. After said tenure, a new society
was formed in February 2019 and total 21 members were elected.
Manmohan Lamba, Shamsher Talwar, Kishor Sehgal, Gulshan Visan and
others are elected. Manmohan Lamba was elected as General Secretary
after being elected by Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education
Society, Geeta Bhavan Hari Mandir Trust started fighting with Shri
Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society. Harish Uppal
confirmed in meeting dt. 28.05.2019 that office bearers of Shri Sanatan
Dharm Sabha Geeta Bhavan Hari Mandir decided that they will take
forcible possession of Shri Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education
Society. Plaintiff will take forcible possession of Shri Kolwada Sanatan
Dharm Sabha Education Society and he will become General Secretary
of Education Society. Thereafter, officer bearers of Shri Sanatan Dharm
Sabha Geeta Bhavan Hari Mandir called a meeting on 02.06.2019 and
elected plaintiff as General Secretary.
5. Defendant submitted that there was a serious problem of law and
order after receipt of complaint of Harish Uppal. Therefore, committee
members of Shri Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society
appointed security agency from 04.06.2019. Thereafter, on 09.06.2019,
Harish Uppal received a call from security persons of school at 07.15
a.m. that more than 25 bouncers gathered near gate of Shri Kolwada
Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society and they were forcibly trying
to close main gate of high school. The security guard informed that at
03.45 p.m., a mob of people having covered their faces with scarf
entered into school premises. They had wooden sticks in their hands.
They took possession of Shri Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education
Society. The plaintiff alongwith other members of Sanatan Dharm
Sabha Geeta Bhavan Hari Mandir entered with bouncers and took
charge of office premises. They broke open lock and took away
-- 3 of 7 --
NM 2179/19 in SU 1641/19 4 C.R.8
documents including cheque book and cash. They also took away all
registers and files.
6. On the basis of complaint, Crime No.198/2019 under Sec.395,
458 and 342 of IPC was registered against plaintiff No.1 and other
office bearers of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiff No.1 and other office
bearers of plaintiff No.2 took law into their hands and trespassed in the
office of Shri Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society.
Plaintiff No.1 and other office bearers of plaintiff No.2 are required for
investigation and recovery of stolen documents including cash.
Allegations in the plaint are baseless. Plaintiff No.1 and other office
bearers of plaintiff No.2 are not cooperating in the investigation.
Defendant is not aware of dispute between plaintiff No.2 and office
bearers of Shri Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society.
Defendant was not party to the consent terms before Hon’ble High
Court.
7. After complaint was lodged by office bearers of Shri Kolwada
Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society, the plaintiff No.1 and other
office bearers were called for investigation. Plaintiffs took forceful
possession of the office and took away record and cash from office of
Shri Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society. A crime was
registered against plaintiff No.1 and office bearers of plaintiff No.2.
They are not cooperating in the investigation. Therefore, this notice of
motion deserves to be rejected.
8. The plaintiffs submitted their rejoinder to bring on record that
plaintiff is in possession and control of education institute. Police are
nobody to disturb functioning of the same without following due
process of law. If police feel that there is a dispute between two groups
-- 4 of 7 --
NM 2179/19 in SU 1641/19 5 C.R.8
to lead the institute, it is always open for them to commence necessary
proceedings under Sec.145 of Cr.P.C. Police cannot be permitted to
misuse the power vested in them. After plaintiff filed this suit,
defendants could not take law into their hands and they filed FIR
against plaintiff No.1. In view of that FIR, plaintiff No.1 and other office
bearers applied for anticipatory bail and they were granted an interim
protection. The whole plot behind registration of offence is to see that
after arrest of plaintiff No.1 and other office bearers, the other group
shall be in position to take over charge of the Education Institute. This
shows malafides on the part of defendants. Police arrested two
employees of the trust to which they had no concerned. This indicates
malafides on the part of police officers. Police officers are acting
contrary to provisions of law and abusing power vested with them. FIR
itself shows that plaintiff is in possession and control of educational
institute. Police authority cannot be permitted to take law into their
hands. Plaintiff prayed for grant of temporary injunction. I have perused
written submissions of plaintiff and heard Ld. Counsel for defendant.
9. The plaintiff pleaded in para-2(a) that plaintiff No.2 is incharge
of activities of the temple on plot No.353 and 356 in G.T.B. Nagar,
Mumbai-37 and educational institute known as Shri Sanatan Dharm
Sabha Geeta Bhavan Hari Mandir. He did not claim to be trustee of
Kolwada Dharm Sabha Education Society and Shri Sanatan Dharm High
School and Junior College. The plaintiff No.1 filed Writ Petition
No.440/2019, he gave a brief synopsis of facts in said writ petition. It is
on page No.41 of the plaint. In said synopsis, plaintiff/petitioner in writ
petition No.440/2019 represented that he is joint secretary of the trust
known as Kolwada Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society. He also
represented that two separate trusts are in existence, one is Kolwada
Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society and another is Sanatan Dharm
-- 5 of 7 --
NM 2179/19 in SU 1641/19 6 C.R.8
Sabha Geeta Bhavan Hari Mandir. Both trust are independent trust and
registered independently with the office of Charity Commissioner. In
this suit he claims to be secretary of Shri Sanatan Dharm Sabha Geeta
Bhavan Hari Mandir only. He does not claim to be secretary of Shri
Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society. There is dispute about
management of the Sanatan Dharm Sabha Education Society. Same
issue was raised in writ petition No.440/2019. Plaintiff is silent as to
what order was passed in said writ petition. If this issue is pending
before Hon'ble High Court, there was no propriety in raising same issue
before this Court in this suit.
10. Perusal of complete record of the case, prompts a person that this
suit is filed only to dissuaded police officers from performing their duty.
Police are investigating the crime registered against plaintiff No.1 and
other office bearers of plaintiff No.2. Injunction cannot be passed
forbidding police from performing their official duty. Police are
responsible for maintenance of law and order. If anyone attempts to
take possession of immovable property by using force and creates threat
to law and order, police are bound to take action. This notice of motion
is nothing, but a clear and blatant abuse of process of law. Hence,
discretion cannot be exercised in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, I pass
following order :-
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.2179 of 2019 is rejected.
2. Notice of Motion No.2179 of 2019 is disposed off accordingly.
Date : 04/10/2024. (Shri. V.G. Raghuwanshi)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Mumbai.
-- 6 of 7 --
NM 2179/19 in SU 1641/19 7 C.R.8
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
04/10/2024 & 05.36 P.M. Mrs. Shravanti Karre
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
Shri V.G. Raghuwanshi (Court Room
No.08)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
04/10/2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
04/10/2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 04/10/2024
-- 7 of 7 --