Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, J.
Krantiveer Sangolli Rayanna Residential High School Trust – Appellant
Versus
Krantiveer Sangolli Rayanna Residential High School Trust (R), Represented By Its Alleged Chairman, Shri Ramappa Pandappa Pammar – Respondent
Writ Petition No.70879 of 2012 (GM-KSR)
Decided on : 23-08-2024
Trust - Registration - Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 - Sections 6, 7 - The court emphasized that registration of a society with a name identical to an existing society is impermissible under Section 7, which mandates that undesirable names cannot be registered.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-Trust challenged the registration of a new Trust with a similar name by the respondent, arguing that it violated the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, as the original Trust was already registered and in existence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registration of the respondent's Trust was illegal as it violated Section 7 of the Act, which prohibits registering societies with undesirable names that are identical or too similar to existing societies.
Issues: Whether the registration of the respondent's Trust was valid given the existence of the petitioner's Trust with a similar name.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registration of a society with a name identical to an existing society is impermissible under Section 7 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which aims to prevent confusion and protect existing entities.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the registration of the respondent No.1-Trust is quashed.
ORDER :
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This writ petition is filed praying this Court to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order or direction quashing registration of respondent No.1-Trust by respondent No.2 at Registration No. OTHER LANGUAGE/1043/2011-12 produced at Annexure-K and issue any other writ or direction or order.
3. The main contention in this petition is that on 28.02.1979 the petitioner-Trust was registered with the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belagavi at Registration No.E-494(BGM). Revappa Hanjappa Lamani who represents as Chairman in the present petition was elected as the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust on 17.08.2003. The respondent-Ramappa Pandappa Pammar who claims to be the Chairman of respondent No.1-Trust along with two others filed a suit against the petitioner-Trust, its Chairman and Managing Committee members in O.S.No.5/2008 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Belagavi on 24.09.2008. The said Court rejected I.A.No.II for temporary injunction but allowed I.A.No.III for appointment of Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Belagavi as Receiver to manage the petitioner-Trust and its institutions vide order dated 26.07.2010. It is also contended that respondent who claims to be the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust filed Miscellaneous Petition No.195/2010 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Belagavi on 02.08.2010.
4. The petitioner-Trust aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Belagavi on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.5/2008, preferred an appeal before this Court in MFA No.23602/2010 and this Court stayed the order dated 02.09.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Belagavi on I.A.No.III in O.S.No.5/2008 until further orders vide order dated 20.10.2010. It is also contended that the Principal District Judge, Belagavi allowed the Miscellaneous Petition No.195/2010 vide order dated 20.07.2011. The said order was also challenged by filing CRP No.1123/2011 before this Court. It is also contended that the said respondent submitted an application to respondent No.2 to register the respondent No.1-Trust under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1960’ for brevity) on 02.01.2012 and the same was registered and this Court also granted interim stay of the order dated 20.07.2011 passed by the Principal District Judge in Misc.Petition No.195/2010 for a period of three months in CRP No.1123/2011.
5. Counsel for the petitioner would also vehemently contend in this petition that the alleged Chairman of respondent No.1 himself had filed O.S.No.5/2008 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Belagavi against the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust and others to declare that the Chairman of petitioner-Trust namely Revappa Hanjappa Lamani and six others have no right to act as Trustees of the petitioner-Trust and to appoint new Trustees in their place. It is contended that once the order was passed on I.A.No.III was stayed by this Court, he ought not to have filed an application for registration of respondent-Trust. It is also contended that respondent No.2 failed to note that petitioner-Trust is already in existence. Hence, another Trust cannot be created in the same name, same address and same aims and objects.
6. It is also contended that on receipt of the application from the respondent for registration of respondent No.1-Trust, it should have invited objections from the public and also given notice to the Chairman of the petitioner-Trust and other Trustees and ought to have given an opportunity of being heard. Respondent No.2 also failed to note that the respondent himself has filed a miscellaneous petition without making any of the original Trustees as parties to the proceedings and obtained an order behind the back of the petitioner-Trust and the said order was also questioned and order was al
The court established that registration of a society with a name identical to an existing society is prohibited under Section 7 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
The court established that the repeal of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 did not invalidate existing trusts, but proper registration and adherence to the KSR Act, 1960 were essential for charitabl....
Section 2(13) of the Trusts Act when the petitioner Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and the same is registered for charitable purposes, it is deemed to be a charitable Trus....
The inquiry held by Deputy or Charity Commissioner under Section 19 is by no means an administrative or an executive inquiry The rules framed under the Act called the Bombay Public Trusts Rules 1951 ....
Procedural compliance in trust registration is mandatory; failure to notify interested parties invalidates the registration process.
The Registrar of Societies lacks the authority to cancel registrations of societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 without appropriate statutory provisions.
Trustees' unilateral resignations require acceptance by the Board, and the Registrar must register amendments without questioning internal validity.
Charity Commissioner under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act lacks jurisdiction to direct deletion of words suggesting government patronage from public trust names; remedy under Emblems Act if misleading....
Deemed registration under the Income Tax Act is valid if no response is received within six months; existing registration remains effective despite subsequent unnecessary applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
