JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---By this Civil Revision Application filed under section 115 of C.P.C., the petitioners herein seek to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 27-9-90 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court refusing petitioners' Chamber Summons No. 774 dated 6-8-90 in Suit No. 4539 of 1989.

2.Shri Vijay Merchant the well-known social worker and philonthrophist was concerned with various trust and philonthrophy institutions and he was also the managing trustee of Sir Vithaldas Damodar Thackersy Charitable Trust which was established by indenture dated 18th October, 1984. The said trust is registered and is public charitable trust. Sir Vijay Merchant died on 27-10-87. The present petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are his sons, wife and daughter respectively. The respondents No. 1 and 2 herein are brothers of Shri Vijay Merchant and respondents No. 4 and 5 are his nephews. The present petitioners (for short, "plaintiffs") filed a suit in the Court of Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay against the respondents No. 1 to 7 herein after obtaining consent of the Charity Commissioner, State of Maharashtra, Bombay for filing the said suit. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that the respondents No. 1 to 6 herein (for short, "defendants No. 1 to 6") are the present trustees of Shri Vallabhdas Damodar Charitable Trust (for short, "trust") and the plaintiffs are the persons having interest in the said public trust and all of them are beneficiaries of the said trust. According to plaintiffs, Shri Vijay Merchant prior to his death discovered certain irregularities committed on trust by 4th defendant Sudhir Thackersy in active collusion with his brother Chandrahas Thackersy who is not a trustee in the trust, and, Mr. Jagdish Thackersy 5th defendant. Shri Vijay Merchant found that these persons have committed gross breach of trust and had also misconducted themselves in collusion to the prejudice of the trust. The plaintiffs alleged that there was deliberate siphoning of the trust properties tantamounting to misappropriation of trust fund and said persons had proceeded to profiteer personally at the cost of the trust and had in fact committed breach of trust in respect of trust property. According to the plaintiffs for the reasons stated and circumstances narrated in the plaint, day-to-day activities of the trust had come to standstill. The plaintiffs required complete investigation into the affairs of 4th defendant Sudhir Thackersy and 5th defendant Jagdish Thackersy in regard to the acts of conversion, misrepresentation, breach of trust, etc. in the matter of shares, transfers, and also illegal import of mercedes car and misuse of it by Shri Sudhir Thackersy. It is further case of the plaintiffs that both defendants No. 4 and 5 were financially corrupt and had rendered themselves liable to be removed as trustees of the trust. The plaintiffs made numerous requests to the trustees for remedial action, but of no avail. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that on the face of several acts of omissions and commissions committed by defendant No. 4 in active co-operation with defendant No. 5, it was necessary, just and proper that they should be removed as trustees of the trust. According to plaintiffs, defendant No. 4 Sudhir Thackersy in collusion with defendant No. 5 Jagdish Thackersy has misappropriated share holding which formed the corpus of the trust to their names or to the companies where the said Shri Sudhir Thackersy and Jagdish Thackersy have interests. According to plaintiffs the trust which came to be created by these trustees were on the face of it bogus trusts and neve carried-out any philontrohpic work and the objectives of these 31 trusts with active participation of defendant No. 4 Shri Sudhir Thackersy and Shri Chandrahas Thackersy as trustees were never disclosed to the relevant trustees of the trust. The plaintiffs alleged that other property in the form of shares has been siphoned by defendant No. 4 and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document