Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
D.Balakumar vs Imayam Trust on 18 December, 2018 cites

D.K. Raja vs P.S. Kumaraswami Raja And Ors. on 3 August, 1954

As far as the judgment in D.K.Raja Vs. P.S.Kumaraswami Raja and others reported in AIR 1955 Mad 360, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is concerned, there are allegations and counter allegations made by managing trustees and the other opposite parties and therefore, the Court appointed receiver for proper management of trust as interest of the trust likely to suffer. The facts of the above case would not be applicable to the present case as the administration is under the respondents.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Rajagopal vs Balachandran And 2 Ors. on 29 August, 2001

31.The trial Court allowed the appellants to mark those documents which have been obtained under RTI Act from the Trust as Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13 documents. Though the respondents would contend that the 4th respondent is a relative of the 1st appellants, without consent of other trustees, had given the information, the trial Court rightly found that the contents of the documents were not denied and the original documents are in the possession of the respondents and therefore, the trial Court rightly received those documents in evidence as Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. The trial Court rightly found that without oral evidence, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the contents of the documents Ex.P. 12 and Ex.P.13 are sufficient to prove the appellants' case. It is true that if there is mismanagement, misuse and misappropriation of funds, Court has got powers to appoint interim administrator, as per the judgment in Rajagopal Vs. Balachandran and two others reported in 2002 (2) CTC http://www.judis.nic.in 24 527; D.K.Raja Vs. P.S.Kumaraswami Raja and others reported in AIR 1955 Mad 360; Ravi Lakshmaiah Vs. Nagamothu Lakshmi and another reported in AIR 1971 AP 380. This Court is of the opinion that it is not a case for appointment of interim administer, as the case of the appellants has to be proved through oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence about the misappropriation of fund and mismanagement.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - P Sridevan - Full Document

T. Krishnaswamy Chetty vs C. Thangavelu Chetty And Ors. on 6 December, 1954

32.Imminent danger of the trust properties and the money has to be proved by the appellants and mere production of documents are not enough to grant extraordinary relief, viz., appointment of administrator. This Court in T.Krishnasamy Chetty Vs. C.Thangavelu Chetty, reported in AIR 1955 Madras 430, held that appointment of receiver is one of the harshest remedy, which the law provides for the enforcement of rights and is allowable only in extreme cases and circumstances, where the interest of the person, seeking appointment of receiver is exposed to manifest peril. The relevant portion is extracted as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 135 - Full Document

N. Anandan vs Ayyanna Gounder, Memorial Trust ... on 30 June, 1993

38.In the Judgment of N.Anandan Vs. Ayyanna Gounder Memorial Trust, reported in 1993 (2) MLJ 493, this Court held that an order of appointment of receiver to protect the trust properties could be made by the Court, even pending disposal of the application for leave under Section 92 of the CPC. This Court held that the suit trust is a public trust, which finding was already confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. With regard to the grant of injunction and appointment of interim receiver, no case has been made out by the appellants.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

The Bank Of Tokyo Mitsubishi Limited vs Spartex Ceramics India Limited on 2 April, 2007

21.The learned counsel for respondents would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of The bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Limited Mumbai Vs. Spartex Ceramics India Limited, Chennai and Others reported in 2007 [2] Law Weekly, 632, to contend that in the interim stage any relief should not have been granted and if granted it would amount to a pre-trial decree and the injunction granted would cause greater hardship to the respondents. Even if prima facie case has http://www.judis.nic.in 17 been made out in favour of the appellants the Court would refuse temporary injunction, if the injury suffered by the appellants on account of the refusal of injunction is not irreparable and considering the comparative hardship that would be caused to the parties, injunction ought not have been granted.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document

M/S Best Sellers Retail(I)P.Ltd vs M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.& Ors on 8 May, 2012

As per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Ors reported in 2012 [5] MLJ 435 (SC), the appointment of Receiver is an extreme step only when there is an imminent danger to the subject property, the Court would usually would grant such an extreme relief and no such imminent threat to the Trust property proved by the appellants. Hence, the learned counsel for Respondents seeks for dismissal of the appeals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 97 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Trambakeshwar Devasthan Trust & Anr vs President Purohit Sangh & Ors on 13 October, 2011

36.There is no quarrel with regard to dictum laid down in http://www.judis.nic.in 28 Trambakeswar Devasthan Trust and another Vs. President, Purohit Sangh and others, reported in 2011 (15) SCC 323 about the locus standi of the persons and the Court's duty is to take vigilant care over functioning of the trust. It is also equally stated about the powers of the Court to grant interim injunction, based on three relevant consideration viz., prima facie case; balance of convenience and and irreparable loss and hardship, which is also stated in Gujarat Electricity Board, Gandhi Nagar Vs. M/s.Maheshkumar and Co, Ahmedabad, reported in AIR 1982 Gujarat 289, relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - A K Patnaik - Full Document
1   2 Next