Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Aniruddh Nikhil Makhecha vs Joint Charity Commisioner-2, Mumbai ... on 7 March, 2025 cites

A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors on 19 July, 2007

In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, (2007) 7 SCC 482, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting religious and charitable properties and cautioned that 10 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 10:25:57 ::: 29-wp1915-2025-F.doc trustees and statutory authorities must act with utmost vigilance to safeguard trust assets. The salutary objective of the revocation provision is to ensure the interests, benefit, and protection of the trust and its properties. This legislative design prevents the misuse of trust assets and serves as a constant reminder that trustees, or any person acting on behalf of the trust, must proceed with transparency and good faith, failing which the law provides a robust corrective mechanism.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 200 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Sailesh Developers, A Registered ... vs The Joint Charity Commissioner ... on 14 February, 2007

25. Before sanctioning the sale of trust property, the Charity Commissioner is mandated to arrive at clear findings on the following aspects: (i) the trust's genuine need to sell the properties; (ii) whether the alienation is in the trust's best interest and beneficial to its objectives; and (iii) whether the sale is both necessary and expedient in the broader scheme of managing the trust. As repeatedly held, including in Sailesh Developers (supra), 12 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/03/2025 10:25:57 ::: 29-wp1915-2025-F.doc the Charity Commissioner should adhere to a transparent procedure, typically involving a public advertisement or an auction, to ensure the property fetches its fair market value and to guard against any potential undervaluation or collusive bidding.
Bombay High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1