Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)

Mehrwan Homi Irani & Anr vs Charity Commissioner, Bombay & Ors on 10 May, 2001

In the case of Mehrwan Homi Irani & Anr Vs Charity Commissioner, Mumbai3 while remitting the matter of grant of sanction for the alienation of the trust property to the Charity Commissioner, the Supreme Court observed that the important point to be considered was, whether the Agreements entered between the Trust and the 5 th Respondent therein, (for alienation in whose favour the sanction was accorded) are capable of carrying out the objects of the trust to provide a Sanatorium for convalescing and sick persons. The objects of the Trust should be accomplished in the best of its interests. Leasing out of a major portion of the land for other purposes may not be in the best interest of the Trust. The Charity Commissioner while granting the permission under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act could have explored those possibilities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Shrikrushna Janrao Tarale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 3 September, 2021

9. The mere continuation of the name of the Applicant No.1 on the Schedule I of the Trust, long after the Applicant No.1 ceased to be a Trustee of the Trust, did not empower the Applicant No.1 to act as the Trustee of the Trust. To this end, Mr. Shah placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Muridhar S/o Janrao Kale & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, School Education Department & Ors1 1 Writ Petition No. 3034 of 2010 decided on 29th October 2010.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - R N Laddha - Full Document

M/S. Darshan Jayant Builder And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors on 26 November, 2018

(ii) The party who comes forward and submits his offer directly before the Charity Commissioner and complies with other requirements as may be laid down by the Charity Commissioner in a pending application under Section 36 of the said Act of 1950 has a locus standi to challenge the final order passed in a proceeding under Section 36. However, the scope of the challenge will be limited as indicated in paragraph 29 above."
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1