Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.45 seconds)

Man Mohan Das vs Janki Prasad on 17 October, 1944

"In England as well as in India 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 eyes of the law acting trustees. If any one refuse or 20 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. 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."
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

L. Janakirama Iyer And Others vs P. M. Nilakanta Iyer And Others on 26 October, 1961

In the judgment titled as "L. Janakirama Iyer and others Vs. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer and others, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 633 (V 49 C 95)" it has been held that "In the eyes of co- trustees, the office is a joint one and under S. 48 all acts which the trustees intend to take for executing the trust must be taken by all of them acting together. If one of the trustees refuses to join in the execution of the trust, S.34 provides for the remedy. The other trustees can apply to the court as contemplated by S. 34 and the trust may accordingly be executed. But S. 48 also contemplates that if a trust deed under which more trustees than one are appointed expressly provides that the execution of the trust may be carried out not by all but by one or more then of course the matter would be governed by the special provision of the trust deed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 129 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next