Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.92 seconds)Section 92 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors vs Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Edu.Sty.& Ors on 11 December, 2012
21. This Court in Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav
[Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer
Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society,
(2013) 11 SCC 531] further observed
that the lack of bona fide of trustees and
39
the petitioners could not have been
overlooked by the High Court. Therefore,
the safest course was to sell off the trust
land through auction. It was also
observed that it was quite clear that due
to the passage of time, the value of the
trust land had increased considerably,
and that it would be in the best interest
of the Trust if the maximum price is
made available for the trust land from
the open market. This Court also
observed that Section 36 of the Act
enjoins duties on the Charity
Commissioner to consider the sale of
immovable property of the Trust, with
regard being had to the "interest, benefit
or protection" of the Trust..."
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Pandurang Dhoni Chougule vs Maruti Hari Jadhav on 26 April, 1965
In Pandurang Dhoni Chougule v.
Maruti Hari Jadhav [(1966) 1 SCR 102) this
Court observed that:
Chenchu Rami Reddy & Anr vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 1 April, 1986
18. It was also observed by this Court in
Chenchu Rami Reddy [Chenchu Rami
Reddy v. State of A.P., (1986) 3 SCC
391] that public officials and public-
minded citizens entrusted with the care
of "public property" have to show
exemplary vigilance; the property of
religious and charitable institutions or
endowments must be jealously
36
protected. The sale of such a property by
private negotiations which will not be
visible to the public eye, and may even
give rise to public suspicion, should not
be, therefore, made, unless there are
reasons to justify the same...
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs State Tax Officer (1) on 31 October, 2023
In support of his
contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL
AND OTHERS vs. STATE TAX OFFICER AND
OTHERS (Review Petition (Civil) No.1620/2023
decided on 31.10.2023)
Amteshwar Anand vs Virender Mohan Singh. & Ors on 7 October, 2005
In
the case of AMTESHWAR ANAND (supra), relied
upon by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Apex Court
has held that it was not necessary for the Court to say
34
in express terms that it was satisfied that the
compromise was a lawful one. There is a presumption
that the Court was so satisfied unless the contrary is
proved. In this case, the compromise decree was
challenged on the ground that it was not for the
interest of the Trust. Hence, this judgment is not
applicable to the facts of this case.
Mahant Harnam Singh, Chela Ofbhai ... vs Gurdial Singh & Anr on 24 February, 1967
In support of his contention, he has relied on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
MAHANT HARNAM SINGH vs. GURDIAL SINGH
AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1967 SC 1415
16
(paragraph 6), judgment of Madras High Court in
the case of T.R.RAMACHANDRA AIYAR AND
ANOTHER vs. PARAMESWARAN UNNI AND
OTHERS reported in (1919) 9 LW 492 and the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
VINAY RAI AND ANOTHER vs. RAM KRISHAN
AND SONS CHARITABLE TRUST AND OTHERS
reported in 2009 SCC Online Del 3760 (paras 10,
11 & 25).