Singh v Reddy [2011] FJHC 643; HBC123.2011 (10 August 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No HBC 123 of 2011L

BETWEEN:

PREM SINGH, RAKESH PRAMOD KUMAR AND ELLE NARSHEA as lawful Trustees of The Bhartiya Mitra Mandali, The Managing Authority of Tilak High School.
Plaintiffs

AND:

GANGA REDDY, JAGDISH SINGH, SUREND VENKAT, DAYA NAND, NAVEEN KUMAR, ANIL PRASAD, JANEND SINGH, RAKESH CHAND, SATYA DASS, KUMAR SAMI NAICKER, PRAKASH NAIR as office bearers and members of The Bhartiya Mitra Mandali Management Board.
Defendants

Appearances:
Natasha Khan for the Plaintiff

ORDER OF THE COURT

Counsel Ms Khan submits that the Management Board consisting of the Defendants are seeking to remove the trustees of the Tilak High School which consist of over 1000 students. Ms Khan submits that the Board of Management does not have any authority to remove the trustees and there is no provision in the Constitution of the school either to do so, and that they can be removed only as per the provisions of Trustees Act.

On the other hand, the Trustees can remove the Management Board, and in fact have done so in removing the previous Management Board which was replaced by the present Management Board according to Ms Khan and the Affidavit of Prem Singh.

The SGM is due to be held on the 14th of August 2011 on Sunday, and Ms Khan submits that unless the said purported SGM which she submits is without the authorization of 50% of the membership, is restrained from being held, the Management Board will proceed to wrongfully attempt to remove the Trustees and cause irreparable harm to the school and its students as well as to the Plaintiffs who are duty bound to protect the school and its assets as the Trustees. The Defendants are by letter annexed PS3 to the Prem Singh affidavit seeks to prevent the Trustees from entering the school premises.

Given the submissions of Ms Khan and the affidavit of Mr Prem Singh, it is evident to Court that unless, the Defendants are restrained from preventing the Plaintiffs from functioning as Trustees and unless they are restrained from holding the SGM on the 14th August 2011 the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and the school too will be without the protection by it's Trustees. On the other hand, there appears to be little or no harm caused or may be caused in restraining the SGM from being held on the 14/8/2001 as such a meeting can be held even thereafter. As such on a balance of convenience too an order restraining the Defendants as sought is reasonable to issue under Order 29. The Plaintiffs being Trustees are acting in protecting the school.

Ms Khan submits that the Court make the exception of not seeking security or an undertaking for damages as all that this Trustee Plaintiffs are seeking in to maintain the Status Quo. I see some merit in Ms Khan's submission.

As such, orders restraining the Defendants as per relief (1) & (2) in the Ex parte Notice of Motion dated and filed on 10/8/2011 to issue for a limited period of 7 days.

As such, the Defendants are restrained by interim injunction from holding the SGM on the 14/8/2011 and from preventing the Plaintiffs from function as the Trustees of the Tilak School and from entering the premises of the said school for the period of 7 days from today.

The above order to be served on the Defendant expeditiously within 24 hours. The said Order returnable on the 17/8/2011.

Mention on 17/8/2011 10Am.

Sgd.
Y.I.Fernando
JUDGE

10/8/2011.