9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of the suit for court fee and jurisdiction. 2. Maintainability of the suit without the secretary as a co-plaintiff. Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of the Suit for Court Fee and Jurisdiction: The primary argument presented by the petitioner is that the suit, in essence, is one for the recovery of the office of the president, which is intimately connected with the right to possession of the properties of the bank. The petitioner posits that the suit should be valued under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act based on the market value of the properties of the institution. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Karupanna Nadar v. Karuppa Nadar, where the court held that a suit for the recovery of the office of managership of an institution was effectively a suit for the possession of the properties managed by that office. However, the court distinguished the present case from Karupanna Nadar v. Karuppa Nadar, noting that the bank is an incorporated company that owns the properties, and the directors merely have custody and management of the bank's affairs. The subject matter of the suit is the office of the president, which is unrelated to anything that can be stated in definite money terms. The court referenced the decision in Vasireddi Veeramma v. Butchayya, which categorized suits for declarations regarding offices as unrelated to definite money terms. The court concluded that the suit was properly valued and within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif. 2. Maintainability of the Suit Without the Secretary as a Co-Plaintiff: The petitioner contended that under the articles of association, the company could only sue through its president and secretary, and since the secretary was not a co-plaintiff, the suit was not maintainable. The court examined Article 48 of the articles of association, which provided that the Nidhi shall sue in the name of the president and the secretary. However, the court noted that the secretary had been impleaded as the sixth defendant because he refused to join as a plaintiff. The court referenced the Federal Court's decision in Satya Charan v. Rameshwar Prasad, which dealt with a similar situation where some directors were plaintiffs and others were defendants. The court held that if a majority of the directors support the suit, it is maintainable even if the secretary is not a co-plaintiff. The court emphasized that the objection raised by the petitioner does not go to the root of the suit, as the second plaintiff, who claims to be the validly appointed president, can independently seek the reliefs claimed. The court further reasoned that if the articles had merely allowed the company to sue in the name of the directors, the suit would still be maintainable with the majority of the directors as plaintiffs. The court concluded that the suit was properly instituted by the company through its president, with the secretary as a defendant, and the objection raised by the petitioner lacked substance. Conclusion: The court upheld the decision of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli on the preliminary issues, finding the suit properly valued and within jurisdiction, and maintainable without the secretary as a co-plaintiff. The civil revision petition was dismissed with costs.
|
