Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Prayer (g) be amended by the incorporation of the words "and the shares purchased from the 31 trusts now in the hands of the defendants Nos. 40 to 43" after the words Santacruz, Bombay.

7. In prayer (n) instead of the words prayers (g) to (m) above substitute the words (e) to (m) above."

5. The said chamber summons was contested by defendants and affidavits-in-reply were filed by existing defendants as well as proposed defendants.

6. The trial Court heard the arguments of the plaintiffs, existing defendants as well as proposed defendants and by the order dated 27-9-90 impugned in the present Civil Revision Application, dismissed the chamber summons on the ground that the consent of the Charity Commissioner under section 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act was necessary before the amendment could be allowed and since the plaintiffs had not obtained such permission before seeking amendment, the chamber summons could not be granted.

7. Mr. Sinhan, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/petitioners strenuously urged that by the proposed amendment neither any substantial change in the character of the suit would be made nor the scope of the suit was sought to be enlarged and, therefore, Court below seriously erred in holding that consent of the Charity Commissioner was required under section 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act before amendment could be allowed. According to him amendment in the title was only descriptive and by that it cannot be said that any change of the character of the suit was sought to be made or scope of the suit was sought to be enlarged. Mr. Sinhan also urged that by the proposed amendment no relief was sought against the proposed defendants trusts and these were only sought to be impleaded as proper parties. He would also contend that relief sought by the proposed amendment against proposed defendant No. 8 could not be construed to mean that relief was sought against 31 trusts. Mr. Sinhan submitted that proposed defendants Nos. 40 to 43 are companies and, therefore, no permission of the Charity Commissioner is required under the Bombay Public Trust Act. In support of his contentions Mr. Sinhan relies upon :

8. Opposing the contentions aforesaid on the other hand, Mr. Soli Cooper, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 6 argued that by the proposed amendment, the scope of the suit was sought to be enlarged and, therefore, consent of the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act was mandatorily required before amendment could be allowed. He submitted that the present controversy is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Jessingbhai Jagjivgandas and others-plaintiffs v. Jivatlal Pratapsi and others-defendants, A.I.R. 1947 Bombay 487 and, therefore, Court below cannot be said to have committed any error much less an error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court under section 115 C.P.C. Mr. Cooper would also rely upon the decision of this Court in Bapugouda Yadgounda Patil and others-defendants appellants v. Vinayak Sadashiv Kulkarni and others-plaintiffs-respondents, A.I.R. 1941 Bombay 317 and submitted that the case in hand was covered by the second category spelt-out by this Court in that case. Accordingly the amendments which enlarge the scope of the suit, for instance by allowing further reliefs, without substantially changing its character may be made with sanction of the Charity Commissioner only and that having not been done the amendment could not be allowed.

16A. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, the question before me is whether the proposed amendment would enlarge the scope of the suit or substantially change the character of the suit or not.

16B. A careful look at the schedule of amendment would show that plaintiffs seek to add Shri Chandrahas K. Thackersy as defendant No. 8 in his individual capacity as well as trustee of 31 public trusts known as V.D. Charitable Trust. The plaintiffs also seek to implead the said 31 trusts as defendants Nos. 9 to 39 and four companies as defendants 40 to 43. Paragraph 2 of the plaint is sought to be amended by inserting defendant No. 8 as a trustee of the 31 public trusts alongwith defendant No. 4 known as Sir Vithaldas Damodar Charitable Trust Nos. 1 to 31 viz, the defendants Nos. 9 to 39. Defendant No. 40 ECK Haubould and Laxmi Limited is a public limited company and a Thackersy family group company in which the affairs and management including the composition of Board of Directors presently being controlled by defendants Nos. 4, 5, 8 and/or their nominees. The defendants Nos. 9 to 39 are being sued through their trustee the defendant No. 8 on the leave of the Court duly obtained under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C.". In para 15 of the original plaint the plaintiffs also seek some amendment. The original prayer (d) made in the plaint is sought to be amended and by that the plaintiffs seek relief against defendant No. 8 by incorporation of the words "and/or defendant No. 8" after the words defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs also propose to add the prayer (e-1) and seek relief that defendants Nos. 4, 5, 8 and/or the defendants 40, 41, 42 and 43 be permanently restrained by an order of this Court from transferring, selling, disposing of and/or otherwise transferring, parting with all that shares of Hindustan Spinning and Weaving Mill Ltd. originally belonging to Sir Vithaldas Damodar Charitable Trust and donated to the 31 trusts and stated to be finally transferred to defendants Nos. 40 to 43. Again in prayer (g) plaintiffs seek amendment by incorporation of the words, "shares purchased from 31 trusts now in the hands of defendants Nos. 40 to 43" after the words Santacruz, Bombay.