Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Appeal under Section 41D(6) - Only by Trustees Removed Under Section 41D(1) The primary point is that an appeal under Section 41D(6) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is only tenable if the individual was removed as a trustee under Section 41D(1). The courts have clarified that persons who are not the recorded trustees and are appointed after the removal of the original trustees do not have the right to appeal under Section 41D(6). Instead, such persons may file appeals under Section 41D(5), but only if they qualify as trustees as defined under Section 2(18). For example, ["Zitru Lahanuji Lonare VS Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1014"] states: a fit person can not challenge his removal under Section 41D(5) as he is not a 'trustee' removed or dismissed under Section 41D(1) of the Act. Similarly, ["Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. VS P. B. Amolik - Bombay"] notes that appeals are specifically against removals carried out under Section 41D(1), and only those trustees removed under this section are entitled to appeal under Section 41D(6).
Legal Interpretation and Limitations The legal position is that only trustees who have been formally removed under Section 41D(1) are eligible to challenge their removal through the prescribed appellate process. Persons appointed subsequently or not recognized as trustees by the statutory definition cannot invoke Section 41D(6). This is reinforced by case law and statutory interpretation, which emphasize the importance of the removal process being under Section 41D(1) for appeals to be valid. For instance, ["Zitru Lahanuji Lonare VS Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1014"] emphasizes: a fit person cannot challenge his removal under Section 41D(5) as he is not a 'trustee' removed or dismissed under Section 41D(1). Additionally, ["Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. VS P. B. Amolik - Bombay"] discusses that the appeal process is specifically linked to the order passed under Section 41D(1), and persons not removed under this section do not have standing to appeal under Section 41D(6).
Conclusion The consensus across the sources is that an appeal under Section 41D(6) can only be filed by trustees who have been removed under Section 41D(1). Persons appointed after such removal or not recognized as trustees do not have the right to appeal under this section, although they may have other avenues or grounds under different provisions or in other courts. This interpretation ensures that the statutory appeal process is strictly linked to the formal removal procedure outlined in Section 41D(1), maintaining clarity and procedural integrity in the governance of public trusts.
Managing a public trust in Maharashtra comes with strict legal obligations under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (now Maharashtra Public Trusts Act). One common question arises: Appeal under Section 41D(6) can only be filed by trustees removed under Section 41D(1) of the public trust act? The answer is generally yes, but understanding the nuances is crucial for trustees, fit persons, and trust administrators to avoid costly missteps.
This post breaks down the legal framework, key distinctions between trustees and fit persons, judicial interpretations, and practical recommendations. Whether you're a trustee facing removal or advising on trust governance, here's what you need to know.
Under Section 41D(6), appeals to the High Court are available against a court's decision under Section 41D(5). However, this right is primarily available to a 'trustee' who has been removed, suspended, or dismissed under Section 41D(1). Such trustees can first challenge the Charity Commissioner's order in court under Section 41D(5), then appeal further. Zitru Lahanuji Lonare VS Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1014
In contrast, individuals appointed as 'Fit Persons' under Section 41D(4) lack standing. These are temporary appointees to manage trust affairs until a proper trustee is installed. They are not classified as 'trustees' and cannot invoke Section 41D(5) or appeal under Section 41D(6). Zitru Lahanuji Lonare VS Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1014Prabhakar Sambhu Chaudhary VS Laxman Baban Mali - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 431
The court has emphasized: The definition of 'trustee' explicitly excludes 'Fit Persons' appointed under Section 41D(4), as they are not considered trustees within the meaning of the Act. Zitru Lahanuji Lonare VS Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1014
These distinctions ensure trust governance adheres to statutory procedures, preventing abuse.
Section 41D empowers the Charity Commissioner to remove, suspend, or dismiss trustees for misconduct, such as mismanagement or violations like unauthorized property construction. Ushakiran Arun Thute VS Joint Charity Commissioner - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1111
Subsection (1) targets trustees, while subsection (4) allows appointing a Fit Person as an interim administrator. The Commissioner can act suo motu or on application, even amid pending change reports under Section 22. The Charity Commissioner can entertain an application of a trustee or of any person interested in the Trust or after receipt of report under Section 41D or even suo motu suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee. Mehernosh Jamshed Jasswalla VS Lalitrao Bhaskarrrao Patil - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 48
A trustee holds permanent responsibility per the trust deed. A Fit Person is a temporary measure, not invoking trustee safeguards. Courts reinforce: A person appointed as a 'Fit Person' under subsection (4) is not a 'trustee' within the meaning of subsection (1). Zitru Lahanuji Lonare VS Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1014
Removal of a Fit Person follows appointment terms, not Section 41D(1) procedures, barring appeals under 41D(5)/(6).
Fit Persons cannot start this chain.
Courts consistently uphold these limits. In one case, writ petitions challenging invalid trustee removals were dismissed, stressing: Trustees cannot unilaterally remove a permanent trustee without proper authority and adherence to legal procedures. Shree Datta Deosthan Trust, Through its authorized Trustee Secretary, Shri Sanjay Kshirsagar vs Murlidhar Eknath Rishipathak - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1834
Another ruling clarified Commissioner jurisdiction: Directions to enroll members under 41D were quashed as exceeding powers and violating Article 19(1)(c). Lalita Panjabrao Phalke VS Jeevan Tulshiram Phalke - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 736
On misconduct, trustees building shops without permission faced removal: Trustees must comply with legal requirements for property management; failure to do so constitutes serious misconduct warranting removal. Ushakiran Arun Thute VS Joint Charity Commissioner - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 1111
Pending Section 22 change reports don't halt 41D actions: The mere pendency of Change Reports does not preclude action under Section 41D. Mehernosh Jamshed Jasswalla VS Lalitrao Bhaskarrrao Patil - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 48
These cases illustrate broader trust management principles, where procedural adherence is paramount.
Civil suits under Section 92 CPC aren't exclusive for trusts, but Section 80 bars courts from issues assigned to the Charity Commissioner. SATISH MOTIANI & ORS. Vs T CHOITHRAM FOUNDATION & ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46301
In summary, appeals under Section 41D(6) are confined to trustees removed under Section 41D(1). Fit Persons, as non-trustees, cannot challenge removals this way. This framework protects public trusts by distinguishing roles and ensuring accountability. Zitru Lahanuji Lonare VS Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1014Prabhakar Sambhu Chaudhary VS Laxman Baban Mali - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 431
Key takeaways:- Confirm 'trustee' status for appeal rights.- Charity Commissioner actions under 41D are robust but procedurally bound.- Integrate trust deed compliance to avoid invalid removals.
This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
References include key judgments like Zitru Lahanuji Lonare VS Rajesh Trimbakrao Deshmukh - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1014, Prabhakar Sambhu Chaudhary VS Laxman Baban Mali - 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 431, Shree Datta Deosthan Trust, Through its authorized Trustee Secretary, Shri Sanjay Kshirsagar vs Murlidhar Eknath Rishipathak - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1834, Mehernosh Jamshed Jasswalla VS Lalitrao Bhaskarrrao Patil - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 48, and others for comprehensive context.
#PublicTrustsAct #TrusteeRemoval #Section41D
appeal under Section 41D(6) of the Act is also tenable. ... Since the appellants are removed by the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 41D(1) of the Act, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, they had rightly filed the appeal under Section 41D(5) of the Act before the learned District J....
by section 41D(1)(b) (c) of the MPT Act. ... of the Trust, except appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 deserved to be removed as trustees under section 41D of the MPT Act and that appointment of Administrator might be necessary to govern the affairs of the Trust. ... First Appeal No.1244 of 2015 and First Appeal No. 1250 of 2015 have been instituted by the trustee....
, removed or dismissed, as provided under Section 41D (1) of the Act. ... There are various inquiries and proceedings under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which give rise to an appeal to the High Court. ... (i) Section 41D of the Act of 1950 relates to suspension, removal and dismissal of trustees. ... Subsection (1) of Section #HL_START....
All these petitions are taken up together as they are inter connected and relates to sequential change reports filed of the Petitioner / Trust under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. ... The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner out of these 10 directions, directed to issue of directions numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 to the trust. Accordingly, on 23.04.2002, the Superintendent of Public Trust Regis....
: 1. The petitioner is a public trust duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The present petition assails the judgment and order dated 28 June 2010 passed by respondent No.9 in Application No.61 of 2010. ... Powers and duties of, and restrictions on, trustees.— (1) A trustee of every public trust shall administer the affairs of the trust and apply the funds and properties t....
All these petitions are taken up together as they are inter connected and relates to sequential change reports filed of the Petitioner / Trust under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. ... The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner out of these 10 directions, directed to issue of directions numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 to the trust. Accordingly, on 23.04.2002, the Superintendent of Public Trust Registr....
motu on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1)(a) to 1(f) of Section 41D of the Act of 1950. ... It is only thereafter that the act of such trustees could have been treated as act of trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner has overlooked this aspect and also provisions of Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. ... application under #HL_....
order can be passed as contemplated by section 41D of the trust Act, 1950. ... By the present Petition, the challenge is to clause (ii) of the impugned order dated 27th December, 2021 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in an application filed under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (in short “the ... ) of the Act, 1950 which is contrary to the scheme framed under #HL_STA....
under section 41-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act. ... Application No. 32/2002 under Section 36 (1) (a) (c) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 by constructing shops blocks on the trust property in spite of the prohibition and thereby, committed default as contemplated under Section 41-D (1) (b) of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950." ... (a)....
Section 92 does not lay down that with respect to a public charitable trust, only a suit under Section 92 can be filed. Section 92 is not the sole repository of suits filed by or against a Public Charitable Trust. 13. ... The language used in Section 92 of the CPC does not suggest the exclusion of a civil suit filed by a Public Charitable Trust under the provisi....
17. Thus, the Charity Commissioner can entertain an application of a trustee or of any person interested in the Trust or after receipt of report under Section 41D or even suo motu suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee of the Public Trust in the event of occurrence of the eventuality enumerating in Section 41D (1) of the MPT Act. (7) The order of the Charity Commissioner shall, subject to any order of the Court or in appeal, be final. It is sought to be contended by the Petitioner that for taking action of suspension, removal or dismissal of a trustee, what essentially requ....
Learned counsel for the petitioners strongly placed reliance on the judgment of this court in case of Gajanan Waman Mulay and others (supra) and would submit that the respondent in this case is not interested in the welfare of the petitioner no.1 trust which is for the benefit of the orphans, children and women i.e. the separate section of the community but is interested to pressurize the petitioners to settle the outgoing disputes between the parties. It is submitted that the provisions under section 41D for removal, suspension or dismissal of any proceedings of the public trust c....
In the course of the judgment, the Joint Charity Commissioner held that the delegation of power by a trustee was permissible in law if permitted by the Deed of Trust and, such a delegation is permissible in law under the Trust Deed in question. The application was dismissed on 25 September 2009 by the Joint Charity Commissioner, save and except in respect of Vijay Mehta, who was dismissed as a trustee. An application under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was filed by the Plaintiff for the removal of nine trustees (Application No.17 of 2006).
Prashant Mehta, in the affidavit, has made reference to Application No.17 of 2006. He has stated that he used to attend hearings of the application regularly and that prior to pronouncement of the final judgment on 25.9.2009 he had “personally seen” one Paresh Parmar, Director Finance, and Mr Shirish Ghanu entering the cabin of learned JCC on quite a few occasions in a clandestine manner. This application was filed by the petitioner under section 41D of the Act seeking removal/suspension of nine trustees. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit he has made specific reference to a p....
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
