LexCHARU KISHOR MEHTA versus JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, GREATER BOMBAY REGION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 5 S.C.R. 846 CHARU KISHOR MEHTA v. JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, 'GREATER BOMBAY REGION & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2819 OF 2015) MARCH 12, 2015 [V. GOPALAGOWDAAND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] c Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950-s. 410-Application under- By one of the trustees of the Public Trust - Against the other trustees (respondent Nos. 2· to 9) including a deceased trustee - Seeking their dismissal from trusteeship and alleging nonfeasance and malfeasance - Application D dismissed by Joint Charity Commissioner holding that 7 of the trustees are liable to be exonerated as they can be only held negligent in delegating their powers and duties in favour of the deceased trustee (the managing trustee)- The order was affirmed by High Court- On appeal, held: Courts below E rightly exonerated the trustees (respondents) in a reasonable and fair manner - Delegation of powers and functions by the respondent-trustees in favour of the Managing Trustee was permissible because the instrument of the Trust provided for that- Trusts- Trusts Act, 1882 - s. 46 and 47. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Clauses 9 and 11(h) of the Trust Deed of the Trust provide for the delegation of the powers and G functions by the trustees of the Trust by appointing one or more of the existing Trustees from among themselves to discharge all such powers and functions of the trustees of the Trust as they may deem fit and proper. By the Resolution dated 30.8.2001, the trustees, H respondent nos.2 to 9 including the appellant had 846 CHARU KISHOR MEHTA v. JOINT CHARITY COMMR., 847 GREATER BOMBAY REGION delegated their powers and functions to the deceased A to manage the affairs of the trust. Thus, clauses 9 and 11 (h) of the Trust deed clearly go to show that there is ample scope for such delegation of powers and functions of the Trustees to another Trustee or Trustees of the Trust to act on their behalf. [Paras 17, 18 and 19] [857-F; 858- B E; 859-F-G] J.P. Srivastava & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. (2005) 1 sec 112: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 648 - relied on. C 2. The plea on the basis of Sections 46 and 47 of the Trusts Act, 1882, to the effect that the trustee cannot renounce his office that requires him to discharge his duties and functions and he cannot delegate the same o to a co-trustee, is not applicable to the public charitable Trust. [Para 21] [861-E] Thayarammal v. Kanakammal & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 457: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 734 - relied on. E 3. The Joint Charity Commissioner has rightly held that the guilt of respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are not proved and has also held that they are negligent for only delegating their powers and functions to the Managing F Trustee, but the charges levelled against them are not proved as they are not responsible for the alleged transactions, therefore, there is no complicity on the allegations made against them. The said conclusion of the Commissioner is based on facts and evidence on G record, therefore, he has rightly exonerated them from the liability and has not imposed punishment u/s. 41 D of the Act, in exercise of his power in a reasonable and fair manner and therefore, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable in nature. [Para 23) [864-E- H HJ 848 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. Sheikh Abdul Kayum & Ors. v. Mui/a Alibhai & Ors. (1963) 3 SCR 6 2 3; J.P. Srivastava & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. (2005) 1 SCC 172: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 648; D. Gopalaswami Mudaliar v. Subramanya Pillai &Anr. (1942) 1MLJ272; Lala Man Mohan Das v. Janki Prasad & Ors. AIR (32) 1945 Privy Council 23 - distinguished. Case Law Reference AIR (32) 1945 distinguished. Para 10 Privy Council 23 (1963) 3 SCR 623 distinguished. Para 13 2004(5) Suppl. SCR 648 relied on. Para 19 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 734 relied on. Para 21 (1942) 1 MLJ 272 distinguished. Para 24 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2819 of2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.2010 of the Division bench of High Court of Bombay in Letters Patent Appeal No. 268 of 2010 in W. P. No. 9501 of 2009 V. Giri, Ajay Bhargava, Vanita Bhargava, Raj Patel, Nitin Mishra, (for Khaitan & Co.) for the appellant. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Shankar Chillarge, AGA, G Aniruddha P. Mayeee, Balaji Srinivasan, Mihir Mody, Sandeep Gupta, Tushar Gupta, Jesal Shah, (for KAshar & Co.), Prateek S., Ranjeeta Rohtagi, GauravAgrawal for the respon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.