Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
Ramkrushna-Appa S/O Vishweshwar-Appa ... vs Krushna S/O Udaybhanji Ingale And Ors. on 14 June, 2005
cites
Section 50 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 72 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 50A in The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edroos (Dead) ... vs Abdulhabib Hasan Arab And Ors on 2 April, 1998
In support of his proposition, he relied on the case of Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edroos v. Abdulhabib Hasan Arab and Ors. .
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Koksingh vs Smt. Deokabai on 10 December, 1975
13. Shri Khapre further submitted that even on facts, the findings given by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner that Application No. 64/2000 was not maintainable, is not sustainable inasmuch as both the applicants in the said application i.e. Krishna Ingle and Wasudeo Jalit were the trustees of the Trust and as such had a locus to prefer the application under Section 50A(1) of the said Act. He submits that though the appellants have not preferred an appeal against the same, the appellants will be still entitled to agitate regarding the impropriety of the said findings in view of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Koksingh v. Smt. Deokabai .
Taher Alimohohamad Poonawala vs Quizar Shaikh Nomanbhoy And Others on 22 July, 1994
15. Shri Gordey submitted that before contemplating an action under Section 50A(1) of the said Act, the learned Charity Commissioner is required to come to a conclusion that there are reason to believe that framing of Scheme is necessary. He submitted that only if the learned Authority comes to a finding that there are reasons to believe that framing of Scheme is necessary, then only the Authority can proceed further for framing the Scheme. He submitted that there were no reason before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to believe that an action as contemplated under Section 50A(1) of the said Act was necessary. In any case, he submitted that the said reasons were not communicated to the Trustees which has vitiated the entire proceedings. He relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Taker Alimohohamad Poonawala v. Quizar Shaikh Nomanbhoy and Ors. .