LexOPERATION ASHA versus SHELLY BATRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 411 : 2025 INSC 932 Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 10048 of 2025) 05 August 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the appellant Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 can be said to have fulfilled all the requirements stipulated u/s.92 CPC for the purpose of instituting a suit under the said provision. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.92 – Public charities – Requirements to be fulfilled for instituting a suit u/s.92 – Appellant society, is a not-for-profit society, registered under the 1860 Act – Respondent no.3-CEO of the appellant society, terminated the services/employment of respondent no.1-medical health professional and co-founder – After the removal of the respondent no.1 as a Board member, both the respondent no.1 and her mother-respondent no.2 instituted a suit u/s.92 for declaration, permanent and prohibitory injunction and, rendition of accounts alleging misconduct and breach of several society’s by-laws by the respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 – Thereafter, respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed an application seeking leave to institute the civil suit against the appellant Society along with the respondent nos.3 to 10 – Single Judge granted leave to the respondent nos.1 and 2 for instituting a suit u/s.92 holding that all the elements and ingredients u/s.92 stood fulfilled – Appeal thereagainst dismissed by the Division Bench – Challenge to: Held: Respondent nos.1 and 2 made several allegations of siphoning of funds by the respondent nos.3 and 4, for their own personal use, could be said to have prima facie satisfied the condition required to apply the doctrine of constructive trust to the present facts – If these allegations are found to have no substance or plainly false, the entire suit would fail – That would happen * Author 412 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports also when the circumstances which required the imposition of a constructive trust do not exist/have not been proven – However, if found true, all the property diverted for the purpose of obtaining a pecuniary advantage would be subject to a constructive trust, the administration of which can be sought in a suit u/s.92 and the respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively would be considered to be ‘constructive trustees’– While scrutinising whether the respondent nos.1 and 2 are persons interested in the trust and whether they are bringing the suit in a representative capacity, it is not just their designation or position which must be looked into or given importance to – While recognising that they have also sought some remedies related to personal grievances and the wrongful dismissal of the respondent no. 1 which could be seen as unduly magnifying an election dispute, there are several other allegations in the plaint which cannot simply be ignored and which give the respondent nos.1 and 2, a dual role/capacity, whilst they’re agitating the matter u/s.92 – Larger background in which the suit is brought alludes to the existence of public interest also at play – Reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs, must fall within those reliefs outlined u/s.92(1) – Reliefs in the present plaint, insofar as they agitate private rights, cannot be granted under a suit of this nature – Suit filed before the Single Judge of the High Court to be commenced – Societies Registration Act, 1860. [Paras 137 (xv), (xvii), 138] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.92 – Object and purpose – Conditions to be fulfilled for the applicability of s.92: Held: Suit u/s.92 is a representative suit of a special nature since the action is instituted on behalf of the public beneficiaries and in public interest – Obtaining a ‘grant of leave’ from the court before the suit can be proceeded with, acts as a procedural and legislative safeguard in order to prevent public trusts from being subjected to undue harassment through frivolous suits being filed against them – However, at the stage of grant of leave, the court neither adjudicates upon the merits of the dispute nor confers any substantive rights upon the parties – Certain conditions or essential pre-requisites need to be fulfilled for a suit to be maintainable under this provision are-the trust in question must be created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature; there must exist a breach of trust or a direction of the court must be necessary
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.