. VO Sa pie Semi y py [aioe i COUNT ‘OF DISTRICT JUDG! s DELI. CIVIL MISC. PETITION 10.. OF 1996. TL Marre oF; le Sheotas singh 2. Prabhat Pant + Rajesh Tyagi ay Nee Ro & ‘. Khobe Ran . ALL Tru: ees of Mott Pratishthan, 5 Marl Prccbigd Hom “(Crash ) To be sexved. through the Rec of Moktd Pratichthe, m= Jente'Mentar Road, « Plaintiffs, Parlianent street, lew Delhi... @ 1. Kailash Satyarthi 2, Somedha Saltash Both Resident of 246, MIG Flat, sheitth sara: 8, Vithal Rao Leb, Lenni rpertrnnd Walgcmele ehowt, Obie pet Myderabad y An w Delhi,2s 4 SUIT UNDER SECTION 92 OF CIVIL PROCHDURE copa. ‘The Mumble pact on behalf of the plaintiffs above named. MOST RESPSCLFULLY: SyOWsEIL 1. That plaintiff No. 6; herein is public trust created for charitabel purposes vide trust deed dated 7, Jentartiantar: sad, * 11.1962 , with its office at ny DeLhie 2, That objects end purposes of the trust include the establishment, running and maintenance of charitable institutions by vay of grants, donations, subscriptions and contributions, to give relief to the sick, poor md disabled persons by. way of aforesaid ems and to organise other economic, social, cultural, educational and health centres to achieve the aforesaid objectives. 3. ‘That the aforesaid trust had been receiving grants end otter financial aids from various sources,’ primarily among then frou foretga 28, ‘the trust has received millions of rupecs as aid / SOUCESs » and donations from the abovesati~36 4. That the plaintiffs and defendents herein are trustees of the aforesaid trust according to presently existing composition of the trust after passing of resolutions dated 11.7.1994 and 27 18.1904, whereas vide these resolutions plaintiff's vere co-opted as tratees by the defendant trutees, whereas defendmts No. 1& 2 are related to cack othere as husband and wife, 5, ) That the practical activities of the trust amongst other funct lone, include mainly | and prinarity running of a centre for | vocational traning of tonéed Labourers in villege Ibrahimpur in Delhi, functioning under the name and style of Niatts Ashman’, 6. That defendant trustees tio, 1 and 3 had been operating the bank accounts of the Trust and were handling 2l1 the practical matters of the trust, before and aflier ‘introduction of the plaintiff trutees of the Trust. 7. ‘That after the intvoduction of plaintiff trustees Ho. 1 to 4.to the aforesaid trust, the plaintiff? trustees through employees of the trust came to know that embezzelment, of hugo soms of money belonging ‘to the trust has taken place, ond that defendant trustecs, have expropriated the huge anounts by maintaining false accounts and have also alienated material interests in trust property of 'Mokt4, Ashram! at Tbrahimpur, Contd /4ereesecretly and without any authorization, thereby committing preach of trast, 8. That the reports pertuiniag te falsification of accounts and embezzioment of trust fonds were discussed by the plaintiff trustees and afteryaris the defendants trustees, yore asked to reypond. 9. That when the defendant trustees could not explain the allegations nade against then, me inquiry was setupt to probe into the allegations against the defendant trustees, aad one of the trustees, sh. skectos singh Initinly, was appointed ar ingnixy of defendant trustee fo, 8, co-rperatéd with the inquiry but took a bustile, po: afterwards. 20. That th rustee sheotaj re condocted on inquiry into the affakts ald accounts of the trust and by virtue of this inquiry if vas revealed. 4) That false accounts have been maintained s of Mokt4 Ashran, 48) That major part post of trust fonds, running inte huge soms of money has been spent by the defendant, trustees eithoy on fore tripsand other luxuries or have been ombevaled by way of falsification of accounts and eurbaaity nothing has been spent tn accordance with tho motives of tie trust, This vay false end fraudtileat practices, intended to cheat other trustees, public and the state was defected during the enquiry and “it was also found that in order to cover. up the diversion of trust uoney for vesved interests, false and forged decomts, have heen prepared, ) Shab defendant trust se ‘9, L has transferred fe scubhdabtedthbtctiis in the trust property sad anotvor trust styLed as ‘Association for Volune- wbary Action (AVA). {come as stun 5 surprise to the notice of enquiry officer that the defendant trustee No. 1 an 2 are also trustees of the afordsaid trust (A.V.A.). Thus it becane clear that defendant trustees by playing a freud have transferred the rights in trust property, mto thenselvs, thereby committing breach of trust. iv) That defendant trusted vo. 1 has seeretly entered. into.an agroonent with a foreign based fonding organisation Pan-asion. comoperat ion Society (P.A.GsS.), deliberately upon such terms and condifions, deirinental to the interests of the. trust so as to deprive the trust even to use tts om propesticn, No. i ~ Contd/s...v) vi) ALL this has been done by the defendants No.l for extraneous reasons and in fortherance of their designs to ex property for themselves by proxy ways. ‘opriate the trust The defendaht No. 1 has entered inte the aforesaid cgreement with P.A.CeS. with other office bearers of soubh Asien-Yoalition on child servitude (Ss on by the defehant AC.S.) on organisation L.which has nothing to do with the trust. That defendtints Nc. T has transferred trust fonds and assets te the orginasation S.AsAC.S. a ox ron by him and hus-bhus benefits himself fron trust moneys “ind esects. That the defendani tristeas, in connivance with itigations alien persons, have got collusive filed against the tr collusion with: t) plainti informed ‘the/trustiec’ about ony Litigation et and because of their allen partice, have not and are themselves appeuwing before Lav Courts, playing fraud upon the trust ond cou! as well, thus profiteriag themselves by selling of the valuable inteve and assets of the trust. Eyen after repented ‘raque ie defendents hava not furnished the details of 1itigats to other. trusteds and are sa came with public interets, vested in0D aie vil) that the eping the » have flow of funds, Seyards ‘the sccomts of other take associations p by Pepre to be sister cone-y Pratishthan. vitijThat the defendants in order to cover up their misieeds have 't red with the resolutions ond proceedin s oi the frust. tx) That to: the atter sy eof © plaintiffs, it has cone to notice that the aefendent is also. trustee in ¢ trast i.e. save T1™ cTIEDTwOoD RI Ashran, as! its office, in it IDAT TON which has declared deed, wheveas defendant No. 1 ig a signatory to the aforesaid trust decd. %) That though the defendant tio. 1 entef nontor of all enbezzionents, faisifiention of accounts of records bub the other defendants trustees wore voll avare. of ali the mischief committed by the de: 1 bat instead of ta! Ing fendant to. 1 they have COHA. Be,co-operated vith hin‘ ond have assisted hin in his designs. 11. That from the enquiry conducted by sh. sheotaj Singh it became clear that the defendants have acted maliciously and have. couiitted breach of trust in a number of ways. The defendants either have crated their oun title and interest adverse to that of the trust in its property or have ascited in doing so and have the interests of the public |vested in deLiberetly acted in a vay even =. to the trust . The defondants have also cheated the Law courts by tnowingL becoming party to Lusivé Ligigations ag other briintees in darts 12, That the defendents while et ena\ the interests and rights in the trust property have acted without ony for extranequs réasun, and for the of ‘their ab the. ce 4 # of pub interes’ and have thus committerpee 13.f That the defendant. no 1 A is conducting a e of SAACS, has fake organisation in the na | txersterred the moneys of the trust to the \ groresaid SAACS and has nurchased a flat 1.6. ty) Aravald Apartadate, “lakaanda and other proverties for his own use in the nage of SAACS. iy. Bhat the Detendant ao.1&2, have dishonestly converted the trust sroperty 1.0. 24 0, MIG, ear Sarai into their own residence and thus \ 15. Thus the defendant no-1, who is acting as omaitted breach of trust. managing: trustee of the, trust has flatly refused to give ony information to the Petitioner trus- tees regarding the affairs and accounts of the trust, alleging that. the plaintiffs have boen | rémoved from trusteeshiv by him. 5 nee 16. That the defendant no.1 with the hely of his wife i.e, defendant no.2, has converted almost all the trust property to their own use and are enjoying lavish status of living by misutdlizing the money uf the Trust meant for welfare and betterment -f poor and deprived sections of the society, specifically chidren. 17.{ That the defendants have put their favorites z \ on the sayrolls of the trust and thereby have =; eee those versuns und themsekves aleo : by maintaining false nayrolls and thereby. \aireeng exprovriating the trust funds, decteving other trustees aid public Interest. contd/-Jeee-18. qe 1s. = Oe That the defendents have misappropriated trust fonds and have utilized them in their own interests. Take accounts have been prepared and other teustees-have been deceived, That it has also sone, to the knowledge of the trustees that thw the plaintit? trusters refused to. sign the statement of accomis prepared’ by the defendants, 1 be: folse and forged, the defendant | trustees have got it signed by their B associates instead of the plaintatt \trustees “and tave ‘further prepared forged |records ‘and accowxts, T ito the kefendaits: have 2 notice of plaintiffs Forged records:to the govt, as required inder the proviso of 3 Regulation Act. That the defandai trustees have knowingly and deliberately concorred in the aforesaid breach of trust, and have benefitted the organigations. rm by them at the cost of the plaintiff'trast and thus have virtually expropriated the trust moneys for their own use. Being trustees and menbers of the alien organizations, who have asserted Cinta /=10, 006AB. = 10 their Interests adverse that of the trust , the defendants, thensel.ves are quinty.of tho some act. That the fact: that. defendants have pecome party to collusive Litigations ft1ea by alien mignnisationx, finds, conclusive epport in the other fact chat feten? defendant io. 1 Wimself jig tusteo or rienber cf the opossing partges in these 1itigations. tence, ance of asfendants in the litigations apr before Lav cour’ collusive, deceptive and miseheviouss 1 That after the fravd and cheating by the defendants tad, come to the fare a report of the same has been made to the police by Sh.Sheotaj singh trustec, acting on bohelf of the plaintiff trustees. That cause of action has az qrisen in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants on various. dates when forgery and fraud yere committed by the defendants pertaining te trust funds ond properties and is & contihving ‘till thie date. That this Toa'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and cuter’ the. present suit emt a/1/ rover‘as enise of action ” jn ‘dbs tenitdonal arisen wit Jurisdiction, & the vakue of the present eutt for the purpose of gurdedictio and cout fee is Rs end the Court fea is paid on the plaint Atself. It 4c sherefore.mos' memble prayed that this Hon&tle court may be pleased. tos 4) Remove the defendant trustess from the board of the trust. 41) direct the account and incuirtes of the trust. 444) Settling a scheme for nanwyenent of the trnet. iv) Grant such other or Surth: relief which this Hon'ble court may deen f16 aud prop matters FLCALL verified at New DeLhion this day of 1996 that the contents of the aforesaid plaint? t.e6 to are correct. to our information ang rest of para aid believe to be true as per Legal ativice. Plaintiffs.