Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.74 seconds)Hasam Ibrahim Abdul Latif Supediwala vs Bhaichand Pranlal Dhoneja And Ors. on 16 October, 1998
This judgment was followed in Hasam Ibrahim Abdul Latif Supediwala v. Bhaichand Pranlal Dhoneja and Ors. .
Sridhar Suar & Anr vs Shri Jagan Nath Temple & Others on 21 April, 1976
17. The facts in the instant case are closer to the facts in the cases of Jagat Narain (supra) and Balmukund (supra) rather than in Sridhar's case (supra). As per the findings given by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the impugned order, the trust will be in a position to construct a hostel building at a place near the newly established professional colleges, i.e. colleges of medicine, homeopathic, engineering, etc. and the trust will also be able to provide better facilities and amenities to the students. We may also record the statement being made by Mr. Soparkar, learned Counsel for the respondent trust that the trust will construct a building which can accommodate 100 students as against the capacity of the present building to accommodate only 40 students. Thus, the students of the community would certainly benefit.
Jagat Narain And Anr. vs Mathura Das And Ors. on 12 June, 1928
17. The facts in the instant case are closer to the facts in the cases of Jagat Narain (supra) and Balmukund (supra) rather than in Sridhar's case (supra). As per the findings given by the Joint Charity Commissioner in the impugned order, the trust will be in a position to construct a hostel building at a place near the newly established professional colleges, i.e. colleges of medicine, homeopathic, engineering, etc. and the trust will also be able to provide better facilities and amenities to the students. We may also record the statement being made by Mr. Soparkar, learned Counsel for the respondent trust that the trust will construct a building which can accommodate 100 students as against the capacity of the present building to accommodate only 40 students. Thus, the students of the community would certainly benefit.
Nagindas Maneklal vs Mahomad Yusuf Mitchela on 20 July, 1921
15. The parameters of the (Gujarati) expression kutumbarthe (for the benefit of the family), as interpreted in Nagindas's case AIR 1922 Bom 122 (supra) which meets with our unqualified approval, fully embrace the facts of the present case in so far as legal necessity for the disputed sale is concerned.
Section 35 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
1