Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 26 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati & Anr vs Ramji Tripathi & Anr on 21 August, 1974
16. The Supreme Court in case of Swami Parmatmanand
Saraswati (Supra) has held in para 10 & 11 of its judgment as
under :
Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959
The Religious Endowments Act, 1863
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
N. Shanmukham Chetty vs M. Govinda Chetty And Ors. on 22 July, 1937
"10. A suit under Section 92 is a suit of a
special nature which presupposes the existence
of a public Trust of a religious or charitable
character. Such a suit can proceed only on the
allegation that there was a breach of such
trust or that the direction of the court is
necessary for the administration of the trust
and the plaintiff must pray for one or more of
the reliefs that are mentioned in the section.
It is, therefore, clear that if the allegation
of breach of trust is not substantiated or
that the plaintiff had not made out a case for
any direction by the court for proper
administration of the trust, the very
foundation of a suit under the section would
fail; and, even if all the other ingredients
of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it
is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to
vindicate the right of the public but are
seeking a declaration of their individual or
personal rights or the individual or personal
rights of any other person or persons in whom
they are interested, then the suit would be
outside the scope of Section 92 (see N.
Shanmukham Chetty v. V.M. Govinda Chetty1,
Tirumalai Devasthanams v. Udiavar Krishnayya
Shanbhaga2, Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia3 and
Mulla: Civil Procedure Code (13th edn.) Vol.
1, p. 400). A suit whose primary object or
purpose is to remedy the infringement of an
individual right or to vindicate a private
right does not fall under the section. It is
not every suit claiming the reliefs specified
in the section that can be brought under the
section but only the suits which, besides
claiming any of the reliefs, are brought by
individuals as representatives of the public
for vindication of public rights, and in
deciding whether a suit falls within Section
92 the court must go beyond the reliefs and
have regard to the capacity in which the
plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for
which the suit was brought. This is the reason
why trustees of public trust of a religious
nature are precluded from suing under the
section to vindicate their individual or
personal rights. It is quite immaterial
whether the trustees pray for declaration of
their personal rights or deny the personal
rights of one or more defendants. When the
right to the office of a trustee is asserted
or denied and relief asked for on that basis,
the suit falls outside Section 92.