Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M. S. SONAK, J.
The Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
vs.
Rev. Dr. P. B. Amolik & Ors. - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1327, 1328, 1244, 1250 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4159, 4162, 4022, 4056 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2848, 2964, 2505 OF 2016 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1327, 1328, 1244, 1250 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12089 OF 2015
Decided On : 14-06-2017
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
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 (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) .
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.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. At their request and with their consent these matters are disposed of by common judgment and order.
2. Even otherwise, the challenge in each of the appeals is to the judgment and order dated 30 October 2015 made by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in appeals under section 41D (5) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act), which is a common order disposing of the two appeals which were numbered as Charity Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2013. Writ Petition No. 12089 of 2015 is instituted by James Baker and another, who were respondents in the appeals before the Civil Court, Mumbai and who claimed to be aggrieved by certain observations in the impugned judgment and order dated 30 October 2015, even though, they have no grievance as regards the final outcome, i.e., dismissal of the two appeals by the Civil Court, Mumbai. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate that the appeals and the writ petition are considered and disposed of by common judgment and order.
3. First Appeal Nos.1327 of 2015 and 1328 of 2015 have been instituted by the following appellants:
(1) The Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd.;
(2) Vipul Rawade
(3) Kishore Pendurkar
(4) Sunil Rawade
4. The two appeals basically challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 30 October 2015 made by the City Civil Court, Mumbai on the grounds that the impugned order terminates the tenure of appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4, even though, the said appellants were not impleaded as parties in original applications under section 41D of the MPT Act, seeking inter alia for removal of some of the trustees of the Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. (Trust). These appellants point out that they had in fact, vide applications dated 12 October 2012, applied to the Joint Charity Commissioner taking up the Original Application No. 28 of 2009 under section 41D of the MPT Act, for leave to intervene or for their impleadment, expressing apprehension that any order in the said proceedings might affect them. They point out that by order dated 16 October 2012, the Joint Charity Commissioner rejected the application for impleadment/intervention by observing that since there are no allegations against appellant Nos.2 to 4, there was no necessity of permitting their intervention or impleadment. They point out that in the order dated 16 October 2012, the Joint Charity Commissioner had also observed that there was no question of making any orders against persons who were not parties to the proceedings.
5. By judgment and order dated 17 December 2012, however, the Charity Commissioner partly allowed Application No. 28 of 2009 under section 41D of the MPT Act and removed almost ten trustees, who were styled as opponent Nos.1 to 10 in Application No. 28 of 2009 before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Joint Charity Commissioner then proceeded to appoint an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Trust, thereby at least indirectly, terminating the tenure of appellant Nos.2,3 and 4, against whom there were neither any allegation as contemplated by section 41D of the MPT Act and nor were they impleaded as parties to the proceedings under section 41D of the MPT Act as aforesaid.
6. The trustees, who were actually ordered to be removed by the Joint Charity Commissioner vide judgment and order dated 17 December 2012 appealed to the City Civil Court, Mumbai under section 72 (1) of the MPT Act, which appeals came to be numbered as Charity Application Nos.1 and 2 of 2013.
7. The appellants in First Appeal Nos.1327 and 1328 of 2015 took out Chamber Summons Nos. 734 and 735 of 2014 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai in pending appeals, seeking their impleadment, inter alia, on the ground that even they were affected by the impugned judgment and order dated 17 December 2012 made by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The chamber summons were allowed by orders dated 1 July 2014 and the appellants, were impleaded as parties in the pending appeals.
8. The City
gpt-4
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
