Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 to 11 are the contesting defendants.

The remaining defendants support the plaintiff.

3 Ori.Sms.2029.11 3(A). On 12th December, 2011, a preliminary objection as to jurisdiction under section 80 of the BPT Act was raised. During the course of the arguments on the preliminary issue, Mr. Chagla also raised another preliminary objection under section 51 of the BPT Act.

10 Ori.Sms.2029.11 II. Whether this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain and try this Originating Summons in view of section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950?

13. Mr. Chagla submitted that in view of section 80 of the BPT Act, an Originating Summons is not maintainable in the case of a public trust where the subject matter of the Originating Summons is covered by the provisions of the BPT Act. His submissions are these. The interpretation of the provisions of a public trust falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner. An Originating Summons is no different from a regular suit. Where the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred by virtue of section 80, the Rules cannot confer such jurisdiction upon the High Court in exercise of its civil jurisdiction. The Rules relating to Originating Summons which fall under Chapter XVII must be read with the provisions of the BPT Act.

17. The plaintiff filed Short Cause Suit No.1997 of 2006 in the Bombay City Civil Court, inter-alia, to challenge the convening of a 14 Ori.Sms.2029.11 meeting of the trustees by one of the trustees. The suit was dismissed by an order and judgment dated 21st / 24th September, 2007.

Mr. Chagla relied upon the fact that the learned Judge dealt, inter-alia, with the interpretation of the said clauses of the trust deed except clause 11(j). If the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court, it was necessary to interpret the clauses as the grant or refusal of the reliefs claimed therein would depend on the same. The learned Judge held that there was no bar to the entertainment, trial and decision of the matter before the court, including under section 80 of the BPT Act.

36. It is not necessary to consider the submission regarding the Rules overriding Section 80 of the BPT Act as section 128(g) specifically recognizes the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain 29 Ori.Sms.2029.11 an Originating Summons. The rules, therefore, regulate this jurisdiction conferred by the CPC. Nor is it, therefore, necessary to refer to a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Mohuragang Gulma Tea Estate & Anr., (1988) 2 Cal.L.T. 167 = MANU/ WB/0189/1988 relied upon by Mr. Setalwad in respect of the maintainability of the Originating Summons. In paragraph 1, the Division Bench had held that the rules of the High Court of Calcutta have special significance in regard to the procedural aspect for the purpose of due administration of justice ;