Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

But the primary objects of the assessee are to promote and protect trade, commerce and industries and to aid, stimulate and promote the development of trade, commerce and industries and to watch over and protect the general commercial interests of India or any part thereof. These objects are not vague or inde-

(1) 6 I.T.R. 427.

finite as objects of general public utility. An object of general public utility, such as promotion, protection, aiding and stimulation of trade, commerce and industries need not, to be valid specify the modus or the steps by which the objects may be achieved or secured. It cannot be said that if called upon to administer an institution of which the objects are of the nature set out, the Court would decline to do so merely on the ground that the method by which trade, commerce or industry is to be promoted or protected, aided or stimulated or the general commercial interests of India are to be watched over or protected are not specified. Analogy of cases like Runchordas Vandra- wandas v. Parvati Bhai(1) in which the Privy Council declared a devise under a will in favour of "dharam" void, is misleading. In that case the devise was declared void, because the expression "dharam" in the view of the Judicial Committee being law, virtue, legal or moral duty was too general and too indefinite for the courts to enforce. Observations by Lord Simonds in Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. National Anti-Vivisection Society(2) that "One of the tests, and a crucial test, whether a trust is charitable lies in the competence of the Court to control and reform it........... that it is the King as parens patriae who is the guardian of charity, and that it is the right and duty of his Attorney-General to intervenue and to inform "the Court if the trustees of a charitable trust fall short of their duty. So too it is his duty to assist the Court, if need be, in the formulation of a scheme for the execution of a charitable trust. But......... is it for a moment to be supposed that it is the function of the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown to intervene and demand that a trust shall be established and administered by the Court, the object of which is to alter the law in a manner highly prejudicial, as he and His Majesty's Government may think, to the welfare of -the State ?" do not assist the case of the revenue. In the view of Lord Simonds the object of the trust was political and, therefore, void, and not because it was vague or indefinite.