Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sri Marcel Martins vs M. Printer & Ors on 27 April, 2012
8. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned Advocate relied upon the decision of
this Court in Marcel Martins v. M. Printer and others1 and submitted that
the case pleaded of the Appellant was fully covered by Section 4 (3) of the
Act and that the courts below were not justified in rejecting the plaint under
Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
Om Prakash And Anr vs Jai Prakash on 9 January, 1992
the respondent, on the other hand, contested the submission and relied upon
a decision of this Court in Om Prakash and another v. Jai Prakash2.
Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
37. We may at this stage refer to a recent decision of this
Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay3, wherein
Raveendran, J. speaking for the Court in that case
explained the terms “fiduciary” and “fiduciary
relationship” in the following words: (SCC pp. 524-25,
para 39)
“39. The term ‘fiduciary’ refers to a person
having a duty to act for the benefit of another,
showing good faith and candour, where such
other person reposes trust and special confidence
in the person owing or discharging the duty. The
term ‘fiduciary relationship’ is used to describe a
situation or transaction where one person
(beneficiary) places complete confidence in
another person (fiduciary) in regard to his
affairs, business or transaction(s). The term also
refers to a person who holds a thing in trust for
another (beneficiary). The fiduciary is expected
to act in confidence and for the benefit and
advantage of the beneficiary, and use good faith
and fairness in dealing with the beneficiary or
the things belonging to the beneficiary. If the
beneficiary has entrusted anything to the
fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to execute
certain acts in regard to or with reference to the
entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in
confidence and is expected not to disclose the
thing or information to any third party.”
It is manifest that while the expression “fiduciary
capacity” may not be capable of a precise definition, it
implies a relationship that is analogous to the relationship
between a trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust.
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
in the plaint the suit is barred by any law or not. We may quote the
following observations of this Court in Popat and Kotecha Property vs.
State Bank of India Staff Association5:
1