Back
MILIND NARENDRA JADHAV
Prasad Dattajirao Patil – Appellant
Versus
Chaudhary Construction Company – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Milind Narendra Jadhav, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Aney, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 26.08.2019 passed below Exhibit "74" in Special Civil Suit No. 689 of 2016 pending before the Trial Court. Respondent No. 1 is the Plaintiff. Respondent No. 4 is Vasant Dada Patil Seva Sanstha, a Trust whereas Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 are the office bearers of the said Trust. Respondent Nos. 9 to 13 are the Trustee and members of the said Trust.
3. Before I advert to the impugned order passed below Exhibit "74", it is pertinent to narrate the relevant facts leading to the passing of the impugned order.
4. Respondent No. 4 - Trust decided to construct a hospital building and school building on land owned by it. This was in 2013. At that time, Petitioner was the president of Respondent No. 4 - Trust. According to the Petitioner, this was however not to his knowledge at all. It was decided that the name of the hospital would be 'Dr. P.D. Patil Hightech Hospital and Medical Research Centre' and the name of the school would be 'Smeeta Patil New English School'. A tender was flo
Amendments to pleadings must not change the nature of the suit or introduce new claims after significant delay, especially when prior findings contradict such changes.
The court reaffirmed the necessity of proper notice, inquiry, and quorum in Trust administration, establishing that interested parties may challenge Trust governance despite assertions of lack of sta....
Point of Law : Where the allegation of breach of trust, direction for administration of Trust is absent, the suit is maintainable and obtaining leave under Section 92 of the CPC is not necessary.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exceptions to the rule of privity of contract and the doctrine of agency require fact finding and due application of law, and may not warr....
The issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and could only be decided after the trial is over.
Court upheld inclusion of petitioner in suit despite arguments against privity of contract, citing exceptions and agency doctrine, necessitating full factual evaluation.
The court affirmed that interested persons in public trust matters have the right to join proceedings, and the concept of abatement does not apply, ensuring that inquiries can continue effectively.
A judgment on admission requires clear admissions by authorized parties; ambiguity in liability can't support a summary judgment.
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
