Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. Shardul Singh i/b. Ivor Peter D'Cruz
For the Respondents: Mr. G. S. Godbole with Mehul Shah and Swapnali Desai , Mr. Vishvajit Sawant i/b. Daljeet Singh Bhatia,Mr. Salim M. SayeedMr. Yogesh For the State : Dabke AGP

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. The appeals are primarily against the judgment of the Civil Court which dismissed the appeals under section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the related orders appointing an administrator and removing trustees (!) .

2. The appellants in First Appeal Nos.1327 and 1328 of 2015 challenged the orders that terminated the tenure of certain trustees, claiming violations of natural justice because they were not impleaded or given an opportunity to be heard prior to their removal (!) (!) .

3. The appellants argued that they had applied for intervention and that their application was rejected on the ground that there were no allegations against them, which they contend violated principles of natural justice (!) .

4. The respondents, including the original applicants, contended that the trustees were properly impleaded, and the orders were within the powers vested under section 41D of the MPT Act, especially given the evidence of misconduct and misappropriation of trust property (!) (!) .

5. The charges against the trustees, including Rev. Dr. P.B. Amolik, involved serious misconduct such as improper dealing with trust properties, failure to obtain necessary permissions, and neglect of duties, which were found to be proved by the authorities (!) (!) (!) .

6. The orders of removal and disqualification, including the order that Rev. Dr. P.B. Amolik be dismissed "forever," were scrutinized, with the Court noting that such a lifetime disqualification was not explicitly authorized under the law, especially after the lapse of the ordinance that provided for such disqualifications (!) (!) .

7. The Court observed that the procedure followed by the authorities was generally in accordance with the law, with proper framing of charges and opportunity for defense, and found no breach of natural justice in the procedural aspects (!) (!) .

8. The Court clarified that the orders did not cast any stigma on the trustees or render them permanently ineligible to contest elections or seek reappointment, and thus, the appeals challenging such stigma or lifetime disqualification were partly allowed or dismissed accordingly (!) (!) .

9. The Court dismissed the appeals that challenged the substantive orders on merits, noting that most charges were proved and that the authorities acted within their powers, but also held that the order dismissing Rev. Dr. P.B. Amolik "forever" should be set aside due to the lapse of the enabling ordinance and lack of statutory authority for such a lifetime ban (!) (!) .

10. The Court imposed costs on the appellants for frivolous defenses and false contentions, emphasizing the need to prevent misuse of trust property and uphold the integrity of the trust management (!) .

11. Directions were issued to hold elections for the trusteeship within three months, and the authorities were instructed to ensure the proper functioning and management of the trust, including conducting inquiries into property transactions and potential misappropriations (!) .

12. The writ petition filed by James Baker was allowed, and certain adverse observations against him were expunged, emphasizing that such remarks were unwarranted and that the focus should be on the substantive issues (!) .

13. The order emphasized that the powers exercised under section 41D should be within the scope of the law, and any actions exceeding statutory authority, such as lifetime disqualifications, should be corrected (!) .

14. The Court extended the time for the payment of costs by Rev. Dr. P.B. Amolik from four to eight weeks, ensuring compliance with the order (!) .

These points encapsulate the core legal findings, procedural issues, and directions issued by the Court based on the detailed judgment.