Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta And Ors. vs Vasant Dhanaji Patil And Ors. on 8 January, 1992

Devi Mahadeo Mandir Trust, ... vs Mukundwadi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. ... on 16 August, 2017

10. In the present case also, the plaintiffs/appellants have instituted suit for cancellation of lease deed executed by erstwhile trustees. Therefore, the appellants can sue the defendants without prior permission of the Charity Commissioner, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court. On perusal of the reasons recorded by the learned District Judge, it appears that the observations in the case of Vidarbha Kshatriya Mali Shikshan Sanstha were brought to the notice of learned District Judge, however subsequent development and law laid down in Amirchand Gupta's case was not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Samarth Seva Mandal vs Shri Ramdas Swami Sansthan Trust on 3 May, 2011

In the case of Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta (supra), the suit was filed by the trustees of the trust seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs or the trustees of the charitable trust were the owners of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:14:20 ::: MP 10 CRA273_11 suit land and that the defendants be directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit lands and for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from entering upon the suit lands. The learned Single Judge of this Court held that the suit was not maintainable in the absence of the permission of the court commissioner. The Division Bench of this Court allowing the appeal and reversing the finding of the learned trial judge has observed thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Mr.Rajiv K. Mehta vs Mrs.Rekha H.Sheth on 24 March, 2014

17. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents rightly pointed out that there was no such objection about maintainability of the suit based on such plea had been raised at the relevant time before the District Court. The issue of jurisdiction as sought to be raised for the first time in this first appeals in reference to the maintainability of the suits before the District Court now should not be accepted. The Apex Court in Shree Gollaleshwar Dev (supra), Leelavati (supra), ::: Downloaded on - 29/03/2014 19:00:12 ::: hvn 46/80 NMS368.11 Amirchand (supra) and Gafoor Ali Hussain (supra) have already taken a view that no permission of Charity Commissioner is necessary in a suit filed by the Trustees for eviction against the trespasser. Those judgments in the facts and circumstances of the case are squarely applicable to the present matters.
Bombay High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 3 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Dr. Vishwanath Dadarao Karad And Ors vs Shri. Avinash Bhaskar Avhad And Ors on 10 July, 2019

89. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the judgment of this court in case of Rajgopal Raghunathdas Somani (supra) and in case of Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta and others (supra) ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 04:49:19 ::: kvm 51 cra1087-14 would apply to the facts of this case and would assist the case of the plaintiffs.
Bombay High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Shivram Mahadev Shinde (Decd) By Kusum ... vs Maharashtra Housing & Area Development ... on 23 December, 2015

In the case of Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta (supra), the Division Bench of Bombay High Court while dealing with Article 65 of the Limitation Act of adverse possession, held that it is necessary for the party claiming adverse possession to set out the dates from which the parties started claiming adversely to the other party.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - M Bhatkar - Full Document

J.V. Gokal Charity Trust And 2 Ors vs Contrex Pvt. Ltd. And 10 Ors on 19 September, 2016

27. All these decisions were considered by a Division Bench of this Court (M. L. Pendse and S. H. Kapadia JJ as they then were) in Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta and Ors. v Vasant Dhanaji Patil and Ors.25 The learned single Judge dimissed the trustee-plaintiffs' suit for a declaration of title and recovery of possession with incidental reliefs in respect of six lands at Bhandup, Mumbai. Prayer (a) sought a declaration that the trustees were the owners of the suit lands and the defendants had no right, title or interest in them, and were trespassers. Prayer (b) sought a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Prayer (c) was for a permanent injunction. The trial court found against the plaintiffs on having established a title; but that apart, it also found that prior written permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the BPT Act was necessary, and that without it, the suit was not maintainable. By this time, Section 2(10) had been amended and included trustees in the definition of 'person having interest'; and the amended Section 50 was also in play, the suit having been filed in 1974, three years after the 1971 amendment. In paragraphs 6 and 7, the Division Bench rejected the contention that the Charity Commissioner's prior written consent under sections 50 and 51 of the Public Trusts Act was a condition precedent to the institution of a possession recovery suit by trustees against trespassers or persons claiming adverse to the trust; and that a failure to obtain consent must result in a dismissal of the suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document
1   2 Next