Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.67 seconds)
Thakkar Kanji Morarjee And Anr vs The Charity Commissioner State Of ... on 4 December, 2014 cites

Charu K. Mehta vs Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust & ... on 5 March, 2012

The judgment in the case of Charu (Supra) holds that such an originating summons would be barred under Section 80 of the BPT Act. The reading of that judgment is incorrect. In that case there were several matters arising before the Assistant Charity Commissioner in change reports in which the interpretation of deeds of trust was directly in question. Those matters were disputed and contested and partly heard by Assistant Charity Commissioner. The change reports would have to be decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner finally and conclusively. The Court would not have any jurisdiction to decide any application with regard to change reports. The originating summons for interpretation of deed of trust with regard to the change reports, therefore, would be barred under Section 80 of the BPT Act. This originating summons is specifically shown to be taken out for questions arising in the administration of the trust of the plaintiffs as specifically averred in paragraph 21 of the summons. A suit required to be filed for recovery of possession would have to be filed in a Civil Court. Orders and directions for administration of any public trust may also be given by the Civil Court. This would only be subject to the Charity Commissioner's consent / sanction. Under Section 50 or 51 of the BPT Act, they would not be matters required to be decided by the Charity Commissioner or any other officer under the Act finally and conclusively. This is not, therefore, one such matter. The Court's jurisdiction to otherwise answer question in an originating summons would not be barred by under Section 80 of BPT Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 12 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document
1