9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Termination of Headmaster's services. 2. Membership termination of certain respondents. 3. Allegations of trespassing and theft. 4. Injunction against interference in school administration. 5. Appointment of joint administrators by the High Court. 6. Prima facie case and jurisdiction of the High Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Termination of Headmaster's services: The Society appointed Respondent No. 1 as Headmaster of the Boys school in 1993. His services were extended twice after reaching the age of superannuation. On April 26, 1997, his services were terminated due to allegations of joining expelled members and criminal trespass. The Society sought a declaration that he ceased to be the Headmaster. 2. Membership termination of certain respondents: Respondents No. 2, 4 to 6, and others were alleged to indulge in harmful activities, leading to their membership termination by a resolution on July 13, 1996. Several suits were filed challenging this resolution, with some dismissed and one pending. 3. Allegations of trespassing and theft: Respondent No. 1 was accused of criminal trespass on April 25, 1997, breaking into the school premises, and stealing important documents and records, which were later recovered from a rival organization. 4. Injunction against interference in school administration: The third respondent, appointed as Teacher in-charge, faced interference from Respondent No. 1 and others, leading to a Title Suit seeking an injunction against such interference. The trial court granted the injunction, which was contested and set aside by the High Court but later restored after remand. 5. Appointment of joint administrators by the High Court: The High Court set aside the trial court's injunction order and appointed two joint administrators to manage the Society and schools, issuing consequential directions. This appointment was challenged as being beyond the scope of the suit. 6. Prima facie case and jurisdiction of the High Court: The High Court observed that the trial court granted the injunction without establishing a prima facie case. It was contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing joint administrators. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court did establish prima facie findings, making the High Court's order unsustainable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, remitting the case for fresh consideration. It emphasized that relief in interlocutory proceedings should not exceed the suit's scope and highlighted that the appointment of joint administrators was neither legal nor just. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the case was sent back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.
|
