LexKISHOR K. MEHTA versus REKHA H. SHETH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 85 KISHOR K. MEHTA v. REKHA H. SHETH & ORS. (Contempt Petiton [CJ No.193 of 2014) MAY 21, 2014 [A. K. PATNAIK AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ] Contempt of Court - Contempt petition - Trust governed A B by 1950 Act - Clause in the trust that petitioner, one of the trustees for life time, however respondent 1 to 10 dispute that C petitioner continues to be life trustee - issuance of notice by respondent no. 6 to convene meeting of Board.of Trustees at office premises - Application by petitioner and others that respondent no. 6 be directed to give notice of the said meeting to them and they be permitted to participate in tht meeting - D Refusal by High Court to grant interim' rhlief - SLP thereagainst - Disposal of, holding that the next meeting of the Board of Trustees would be held at Hotel Taj Lands End, and notice would be given to all trustees entitleq to participate in the meeting, without considering who all trustees entitled to participate in the meeting of the T(u~t .,...f?ailure of respondent no. 6 in addressing notice to petitioner about the said meeting - Contempt petition by petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order of this Court - Stand of respondent no. 6 that he was under a bona fide impression that petitioner and respondent nos. 12 to 19 were no longer trustees and were not entitled to participate in the said meeting - Held: Respondent no. 6 not guilty of willful disobedience of the order E F - Contempt proceedings dropped but to do complete justice between the parties, the order disposing of SLP recalled - G Interim arrangement/order passed as regards the functioning of the Board of Trustees which would continue till the disposal of SLP - Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Prad"sh, Jabalpur, 85 H 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R. A through Registrar AIR 1992 SC 904-referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 1992 SC 904 Referred to Para 4 CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition [CJ B No.193 of 2014. IN SLP (C) No. 3772 of 2014. From the Judgment and order dated 04/02/2014 in CA No. C 329 of 2014, WP No. 735 of 2014 of the High Court of Bombay. Ashok K. Parija, Ranjit Kumar, Amarendra Sharan, Shyam Divan, Shankar Chillarge, Addi Govt. Khaitan & Co., Arjun Garg, Mohit Singh, AP. Mayee, N. Chidambaram, Subodh K. Pathak, Subhash Jha, Shashi Ranjan, Dharmendra Kumar D Sinha, Somnadri Goud, Shashank Bhansali, Parekh & Co., Abhani Sahoo, Richa Kapoor, Sangeeta Bharti, Ashish Kumar, Prerna Mehta, Krishanu Adhikary, Shalin Arthwan, Rekha Pandey, Ajay Kumar, Manish Desai, Dhirendra Sinha, Aman Verma for. the appearing parties. E The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. In this Contempt Petition, the F petitioner has alleged that the respondents have wilfully violated the order dated 14.02.2014 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.3772 of 2014. 2. The facts very briefly are that on 05.07.1978, Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') G was settled .by the late Shri Kirtilal Manila! Mehta. The Trust is governed by the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. As per clause 16 of the Trust Deed, the petitioner Kish or Kirtilal Mehta is one of the permanent trustees for the lifetime. Respondent Nos.1 to 10, however, dispute that Kishor Kirtilal Mehta continues to H KISHOR K. MEHTA v. REKHA H. SHETH 87 [A. K. PATNAIK, J.] be a life trustee. Various other disputes between the trustees A are pending in different courts. While the position stood thus, respondent no.6 issued a notice on 30.01.2014 to convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees on 07.02.2014 at the office premises of respondent no.10. Five persons, namely, Kishor Kiritilal Mehta (petitioner), Rajiv K. Mehta, Rajesh Mehta, B Prashant Mehta and Reshma Mehta, filed Civil Application No.329 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.735 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court praying that respondent no.6 be directed to give the notice dated 30.01.2014 of the meeting of the Board of Trustee~ also to them and they be permitted to participate c in the said meeting scheduled on 07.02.2014. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in its order dated 04.02.2014, however, took the view that there is no reason to grant any ad- i nte rim relief and that the parties may challenge the proceedings of the meeting by filing appropriate proceeding
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.