Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)Section 17 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 41A in The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Pavankumar Jain & vs Priyavadan Ambalal Patel & on 12 September, 2013
41A of the Trust Act, the Charity
Commissioner can issue direction only in
respect of the matter falling under Secs. 32
to 41 of the Trust Act. However, considering
the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench
in detail and the observations made by the
Division Bench with respect to question posed
before the Division Bench in the case of
Syedna Mohamed Burhanuddin, [1992 (1) GLH
331], we are of the opinion that as such
there is no absolute proposition of law laid
down by the Division Bench in the said
decision that in exercise of powers conferred
under Sec. 41A of the Trust Act, the Charity
Commissioner can issue the direction in
respect of the matters falling under Secs. 32
to 41 of the Trust Act only.
Section 15 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
7.2. As observed hereinabove, there was no
controversy before the Division Bench in the
aforesaid decision that whether the powers of
the Charity Commissioner to issue direction
under Sec. 41A of the Trust Act, shall be
restricted to matters in respect of Secs. 32
to 41 only. Therefore, if the judgment of the
Division Bench in the case of Syedna Mohamed
Burhanuddin, [1992 (1) GLH 331], if read as a
Page 21 of 26
Downloaded on : Wed Jan 13 02:02:25 IST 2021
C/SCA/16628/2020 ORDER
whole and its true perspective, as such it
does not hold that Sec. 41A is restricted to
Secs. 32 to 41 only. As such, in the
aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has
not restricted the powers under Sec. 41A of
the Trust Act to the matters contained in
Secs. 32 to 41 of the Trust Act only. As per
the catena of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, more particularly in the case of Zee
Telefilms Limited v. Union of India, reported
in , AIR 2005 SC 2677 (Para 275-278); in the
case of Natural Resources Allocation, in Re.
Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, reported
in , 2012 (10) SCC 1 (Para 73) and in the
case of Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in , 2004 (2) SCC 362
(Para 12), a judgment is to be read as a
whole and that it is not a precedent for a
question that was not before the Court.
Mehboob Dawood Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 January, 2004
7.2. As observed hereinabove, there was no
controversy before the Division Bench in the
aforesaid decision that whether the powers of
the Charity Commissioner to issue direction
under Sec. 41A of the Trust Act, shall be
restricted to matters in respect of Secs. 32
to 41 only. Therefore, if the judgment of the
Division Bench in the case of Syedna Mohamed
Burhanuddin, [1992 (1) GLH 331], if read as a
Page 21 of 26
Downloaded on : Wed Jan 13 02:02:25 IST 2021
C/SCA/16628/2020 ORDER
whole and its true perspective, as such it
does not hold that Sec. 41A is restricted to
Secs. 32 to 41 only. As such, in the
aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has
not restricted the powers under Sec. 41A of
the Trust Act to the matters contained in
Secs. 32 to 41 of the Trust Act only. As per
the catena of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, more particularly in the case of Zee
Telefilms Limited v. Union of India, reported
in , AIR 2005 SC 2677 (Para 275-278); in the
case of Natural Resources Allocation, in Re.
Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, reported
in , 2012 (10) SCC 1 (Para 73) and in the
case of Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in , 2004 (2) SCC 362
(Para 12), a judgment is to be read as a
whole and that it is not a precedent for a
question that was not before the Court.
1