LexDINSHAW RUSI MEHTA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 727 DJNSHAW RUSI MEHTA & ANR. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4375 of2017) MARCH 22, 20 I 7 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - s.36 - PLIH, a charitable trust, constructed a charitable hospital - However, P LIH resolved to transfer Hospital to another Public Trust called BP P - Hospital got closed for various reasons - P llH entered into lease agreement/scheme with-company called KHPL to renovate!ref;uild the hospital into a super_ specialty hospital at their cost - Charity Commissioner accorded approval to PLIH for execution of lease deed in favour of KHPL - One group of trustees of BPP filed writ petition in High Court challenging legality of scheme and approval granted by the Charity Commissioner - High Court upheld.the scheme and order of Commissioner - On appeal, held: During pendency of the litigation, KP HL informed the P LIHIBP P that it was not interested in continuing the project - Thereafter, KP LH terminated the agreement - When the impugned scheme/agreement no longer subsists and is not alive, there is no occasion to decide. ·rs legality and correctness on legal side because any decision; even if rendered, would be of no avail t0 the parties - Appeal has become infructuous for all practical purposes. Trust - Duty of a trustee. - Moral as well as legal duty - Elucidated. Disposi11g of the appeal, the Court HELD: · 1. On perusal of the record of the case, it- is not necessary for this Court to decide any of the points urged on account of certain subsequent events which took place during the pendency of this litigation. The subsequent events brought to notice have a. direct bearipg over the controversy involved in this case and hence' they deserve to be taken note of, for deciding the appeal. [Para 17] [732-A-B] 2. During the pendency of the litigation, KHPL- respondent 727 A B c D .E F G H 728 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R. No. 18 herein, in whose favour the transfer of land was made by BPP/PLIH for setting up a new hospital informed the BPP/PLIH vide their letters/communiction that KHPL is now no more interested in continuing with the project for the reasons mentioned in their letters. By these letters, KHPL terminated the agreement. [Para 18] [732-CI 3. Be that as it may when the scheme/agreement impugned in this litigation stands terminated and is not being given effect to by the parties or in other words when the scheme/agreement cannot now be given effect to due to parties' own volition, :here does not arise any need for this Court to .decide its legality or correctness on merits. [Para 19] [732-D-E] 4. When the impugned scheme/agreement no longer subsists and not alive, there is no occasion to decide its legality and correctness on legal side becau.se any decision, even if rendered, would be of no avail to the parties. Indeed, in such circumstances, the writ petition out of which this appeal arises has rendered infructuous for all practical purposes. [Paras 20, 21) [732-E-F) 5.1 Having regard to the nature of controversy and keeping in view the manner in which the parties prosecuted this litigation against each other, this appeal is disposed of with observations and certain directions mentioned infra which are apposite in the facts of the case. First, the scheme/agreement in question would not be given effect to by the parties in the light of respondent No. 18 (KHPL)'s two letters. Second, the BPP and PLIB would be at liberty to enter into any other arrangement, scheme etc. in relation to the land/hospital in question, if they so consider it to be just and proper and in the interest of the Trusts/beneficiaries with any person, body, Corporate, organization, firm etc. If the Trust(s) resolves to do so, then it will be given effect to after ensuring all necessary compliances/formalities/requirements contained in the Trust Deed and the Act and after obtaining necessary approval from the Charity Commissioner as required under the Act. [Paras 22-24] [732-G-H; 733-A-B] 5.2 Third, no opinion is expressed regarding issue of the termination of the agreement made by respondent No. 18 - KHPL qua BPP/PLIB and vice versa because it was not the subject matter DINSHAW RUSI MEHTA & ANR. v. THE STATE OF 729 MAHARASHTRA & ORS. of this litigation. Therefore, it is left open to the parties to get A their rights decided aga
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.