Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
Bishan Das And Others vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 19 April, 1961
In Bishan Das and others v. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1961 SCC 1570, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while repelling the action of the Government in dispossessing the trustee had held as follows:
Kalyana Venkataramana Aiyangar And ... vs Kasturi Ranga Aiyangar on 15 August, 1916
29. The other contention of Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that the plaintiff trust being a public Educational Trust is governed by the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If Section 92 is to be applied then a trustee cannot be removed except by invoking the procedure prescribed under the said Section. There is no doubt that Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure takes in its sweep removal of trustees also. Therefore if a trustee of a public charitable trust is to be removed it can be done only by invoking the provisions of Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure. As early as in 1917 the Full Bench of this Court in Kalyana Venkataramana Aiyangar and another v. Kasturi Ranga Aiyangar reported in Volume (V) LW 625, had held as follows:
The Religious Endowments Act, 1863
Section 2 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 104 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
S.Saravanamuthu vs V.Moorthy on 30 April, 2010
19. Per contra Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would contend that the very induction of the defendants 1 and 2 in the trust was induced by fraud. Referring to the memorandum of understanding dated 20.08.2015, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the defendants 1 and 2 were brought in as trustees on the understanding that they would infuse funds in the trust and also obtain the necessary permissions for running the Medical College. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel would also contend that the amendments brought to the trust deed is void and no right could be claimed under the said amendment. According to the learned Senior Counsel the power of the founder trustee to remove the defendants as trustees has not been withdrawn. As an alternative submission, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that even if the defendants cannot be removed as trustees the permission that would give them to manage Medical College Hospital can be withdrawn by the other trustees and the trust Board, which had the power to appoint them as trustees and invest them with certain function has always the power to recall the said functions. He would also rely upon the judgment of this Court in S.Saravanamuthu v. V.Moorthy and 4 others reported in 2010 (3) LW 393.
1