IN THE (GOURT UF SHRI. PAK. SAIN, A.D.3.) DELHI SHEOTAI SINGH & OTHERS Vs. KAILAGH SATVARIH) & ORS. DOH. t 12.12. 207 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 383 ON BEHALE UF PQAINTIFF. That plaintitrs have tiled « suit under: Sectiin : 92 of the Givil. Praceunié "Lode flengwith a0 application inden Under 40 Rule Cre Me VI ESP. oye rict “the “uerenuat and fhe Same is pehding Before ghin Hon‘bie Court. iz That “Hon‘ble ourt vide order dated 11-4.1997 disposed otf the application under Under 40 Rute 1 C.P.C. The Hon'ble Gourt by sala order appointed the Receiver and.asked him ta act and report the matter in’ court on certain pointes. tacts as stated inthe said onder. ‘the Receiver has: ‘filed an interim Report in the Hon‘ble: Court leaving certain tacts on whiencepart has te be submitted. One of Une iaportant ucts on which Receiver is required to act and report is as underto wal Receiver /shall prepare the 11st. of difterdnt organizations with wham the ceust de in corresponding for receiving the fundw and passing, on the money ais’ shall turche prepare lial ‘of these funding including toreign funds, trod the vary ineaption tne brusts” : qhatjatter filing. the iiiteria Report aa: wubaleven by Recelver | cenewin lepareant development fies “took place. The trust Muktd pratishthan is new almost dead Trust) — as far a8 fande are congerned. As per defendants no-t & 2 funding, agenciés ate stopped funding the sald cust; bat such’: situation “is | intentionally created by defendant no.1 % 2 far thelr own hendtite: “They, ‘siphoned the money, and donating agency from said Trust fe “Assaciatian of Voluntary © Action “(ava". The suid AVA ic now nding rodney, of -Muktl Pratishthan. — The defendant no. % 2 themselves has filed and relied upon the agreement arriver! betwaen AVA and Mukti Pratishthan by which it i AVA who is contd. .atid, Teuses“ALtioughs suct Agraunnct was created Prativhtian has na money, theretare, no but still AVA entirely managing the disputed Trust. a That even the foresgd donor of AVA has raised "the! question .abont the tinancial Mismanagement going on in AVA, There are serious misappropriation’ of fund in the AVA, The defendant ne it? ter their persensi benetit creating number of Trust and diverting the maney tram AVA to these Trust. Flaintift come ta know at least three Trust has been created which are headed by defendant nowt & 2 and his son. the son of detendant not & 2 namely Bh. Bhuvan Ribhu Satyarthi is the Director of one Trust and drawing handsome salary. Sh. Shuvan Ribhu Satyarthi is an advocate, but drawing the walary. Contd.s. That detendant not own number of properties in his mans. The said properties have been purchased atter siphoning the money from the funds of AVA and other Toust. AWA, Mukti Pratishthan “and .others. created Trust all are inter-linked. _ dt is, theretore, most respecttully prayed ‘that. t “ar lavestig#tion/, inguiry be conducted for @isappenpfiation pf bhe terelyn dangbed fund by ‘the defepdant nowt & 2 and his son namely Gh. Bhuvan. Ribhu Satyartht or betendant Note? be directed to tile the particulars of different properties and Bank Accounts ‘owned by them and also to disclose the name of diftarant Trust/Onganizations created by thems! in the interest of Jtistice: PLAINTIFF THROUGH couNsEL, DELHE DATED + Décember 5 2007