ASH OK KUMAR KAPUR AND ORS versus ASHOK KHANNA AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 957 · Decided: 13-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-J 
ASH OK KUMAR KAPUR AND ORS 
A 
v. 
ASHOK KHANNA AND ORS 
MARCH 13, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) 
B 
> 
""' 
Indian Trusts Act, 1882; Ss. 34 and 83: 
Trust-Staff Pension Fund-Filing of suits by Managing Director and c 
others for realization of pension-Company filing an application under 
Section 34 of the Act for appropriate direction as the Trust has been completely 
executed without exhaustion of Trust property-Dismissed by Single Judge 
of the High Court-Letters Patent Appeal dismissed by Division Bench of the 
High Court-On appeal, Held: Per Sinha, J: Jn terms of provision under S. 
34 of the Act, jurisdiction of the Court not only confined to opinion or advice D 
but also extends to issuance of direction-But the Court could not exercise 
- } 
jurisdiction which is not vested in it-Advice/opinion/direction could be 
made in respect of administration of the Trust-Summary jurisdiction would 
not be exercised in the event exclusionary clause comes into operation-
Extinction of Trust and Interpretation of Trust deed are questions of importance 
and matter of detail proceeding as these involve determination of liabilities E 
of the Trustees -Since the question posed before the High Court was difficult 
one, High Court was right in refusing to exercise its discretion-Since suits 
for realization of pension are pending, it cannot be said that all the 
beneficiaries of the Trust have been paid of-In the facts and circumstances 
-
~-
of the case, bonafide of trustees in moving an application under s. 34 for F 
directions in regard to the balance fund available with the Trust is suspect-
S. 83 of the Act not attracted since the Court in exercise of its discretionary 
summary jurisdiction cannot conclusively determine the rights and obligation 
of trustees vis-a-vis the State on the one hand and beneficiary thereof on the 
other-No case has been made out for interference with the impugned 
judgment-Moreover, when a Court refuses to exercise its discretionary G 
::.I 
jurisdiction, an appellate Court shall not interfere therewith-Article 142 of 
the Constitution of India in a case of this nature may not be invoked 
particularly when the Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142-0.fficial Trustees Act, 1930-/ndian 
957 
H 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S. C.R. 
A Succession Act, 1925-Section 302-Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 
1920-S. 7. 
Per Markandey Katju, J.: 
All the beneficiaries under the Trust have been paid off-Certain amount 
B has been transferred to Life Insurance Corporation, balance amount 
remaining with the Trust fund-It is required to be refimded to the company 
in terms of Section 83 of the Act-Trust has been executed without exhaustion 
of the funds-Section 34 of the Act not attracted as the object of the Trust 
... 
has been fulfilled and the only question left was about the use of remaining 
>-
C fimd with the Trust--Under the circumstances, a direction under Article 142 
of the Constitution could be issued to the Trust to refund the balance fund 
to the company. 
In view of difference of opinion, the matter referred to larger Bench. 
D 
Mis. Dunlop India Ltd. floated a Fund for providing pension and annuities 
to the members of the executive management staff of the Company. The terms 
of the deed were amended from time to time. Respondent No. 3, Managing 
Director of the Company, has filed a suit for realization of an amount of pension 
quantified at Rs.45 lacs and two other suits were filed by other members which 
are pending in the Court. An application was filed by the trustees before the 
E High Court purported to be under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, alleging, 
inter alia, that the purpose of the trust has been completely fulfilled and/or 
trust has been completely executed without exhaustion of the trust fund and 
praying for an appropriate direction and/or advise and/or opinion with regard 
to the balance amount available with the Trust and accrued interest lying in 
F 
Special Deposit of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. In the said 
proceeding, only Respondent No.I was made a party in a representative 
capacity. It was contended that out of 186 employees who were eligible to 
receive pension fund, 140 employees consented that the surplus amount be 
refunded to the Company. Single Judge of the High Court while holding that 
the application under Section 34 of the Act was not maintainable, opined that 
G 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.