Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)J.P. Srivastava & Sons Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. & Ors on 26 October, 2004
In the decision in J.P. Srivastava & Sons (P) Ltd.
and others vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd and others [(2005) 1
Supreme Court Cases 172], it was held in paragraph 29 as
follows:
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
In the decision in
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by lrs and
others (2008 KHC 6249), it was held as follows:
L. Janakirama Iyer And Others vs P. M. Nilakanta Iyer And Others on 26 October, 1961
19. Lewin on "Trusts" has observed that "in
the case of co-trustees the office is a joint one.
Where the administration of the trust is vested in co-
trustees they all form as it were but one collective
trustee, and therefore must execute the duties of the
office in their joint capacity. It is not uncommon to
hear one of several trustees spoken of as the acting
trustee but the Court knows no such distinction; all
who accept the office are in the eye of the law acting
trustees. If anyone refuses or be incapable to join, it
is not competent for the others to proceed without
him, but the administration of the trust must in that
case devolve upon the Court. However, the act of
one trustee done with the sanction and approval of a
co-trustee may be regarded as the act of both. But
such sanction or approval must be strictly proved".
Section 34 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Vedakannu Nadar And Ors. vs Nanguneri Taluk Singikulam Annadana ... on 6 May, 1938
In the decision in Vedakannu Nadar & others vs.
Nanguneri Taluk Singikulam Annadana Chatram & others
(AIR 1938 Madras 982), it was held that the de facto trustee
cannot independently sue and all trustees will have to be parties
to the proceedings. Such a contingency does not arise in the
case.
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004
In the decision in Janki Vashdeo vs. Indusind Bank
[(2005) 2 SCC 217], it was held in paragraph 13 as follows:
Sheikh Abdul Kayum vs Mulla Alibhai on 17 August, 1962
In the decision in Sheikh Abdul Kayum and others
vs. Mulla Alibhai and others (AIR 1963 Supreme Court 309),
the principle laid down is that the trustees cannot transfer their
duties and functions in other words, trustees cannot delegate
their duties and powers. In paragraph 16 of the said decision, it
is observed as follows:
Homi Nariman Bhiwandiwala vs Zoroastrian Co-Operative Credit Bank ... on 15 January, 2001
20. True in the decision in Homi Nariman Bhiwandiwala
vs. The Zoroastrian Co-operative Credit Bank Ltd. and
another (AIR 2001 Bombay 267), it was held that in the said
case the defendant-Trust was not a separate legal entity. If that
be the position, all the trustees should be joined if a legal action
is initiated against the trust. What was considered in the decision
in Nagar Wachan Mandir, Pandharpur through its
Chairman, President and another vs. M/s. Akabaralli
R.S.A No.633/2013 16
Abdulhusen & Sons and others (1994 (2) Bom.C.R. 251) was
that unless instrument of Trust provides that someone would be
authorised to act on behalf of the Trust, suit filed by the
Chairman and Secretary of the Trust, even if it is registered
under the Societies Registration Act, is not maintainable. What is
significant is that the decision recognises the fact that the body of
trustees can authorise through bylaws any person to represent
the Trust.