ALONGWITH v. The Inspector, Asst. Charity Commissioner, Solapur at Solapur & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ss. 22, 36(a)(3), 36(b)
Judgment
Shri I.M.Khairdi for the Appellants. Shri V.B.Sakhare, AGP for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2005 DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2005 DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2005 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :
1. Heard Advocate for the Appellants and Respondents.
2. The appellants, who were Chairman and Secretary :2: respectively of the Educational Trust, were removed from their respective position and therefore, this Appeal. Nine charges were levelled against the appellants/ opponents. They were :-
Opponents did not report of purchase of property plot No. 4747/3, admeasuring 663.69 Sq.Mtrs. for consideration fo Rs. 12,000/- on
05.09.1988.
The opponents made construction of 4 rooms on the said plot by investing amount of Rs. 1.40 lacs in the year 1988-89 without calling tenders.
Opponents obtained loan or borrowed money without obtaining prior permission of this authority under section 36(a) (3) of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
They did not submit budget under section 31-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act,
They did not maintain register of movable and immovable property under section 36 (b) of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 read with Rule 24(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Rules, :3:
The opponents had allowed one of trustees i.e. Opponent No.11 Miss Kusum Arade alone only to operate bank account No.79 inn Pandharpur Urban Co-operative Bank Pandharpur which is against Rules.
Opponents did not submit change reports u/s. 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 on the occurrence so far.
They willfully disobeyed the lawful orders issued by the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Solapur vide Letter No. Insp/15-86/2592/86 dated 1/9/1986 and letter No. Insp/2368/89 dated 31/5/1989 AND
You opponents made persistent default in submission of Audit Reports and returns from 1974-75 to 1992-93.
Operative part
3. These charges are held to have proved by evidence against the appellants. Counsel for the appellants contended, by relying upon the judgment of this court reported in 1990 (2) Bom. C.R. 702 in the case of Vajubhai Patel and Anr. vs. The Charity :4: Commissioner, Maharashtra State and Ors. ; wherein it has held that every technical deviation is not liable to be used against trustee. The charges levelled are not at all technical. The appellants who were Chairman and Secretary, were wholly incharge of the Trust. They were recklessly negligent and they have no respect for law for which they were made as trustees. The charges are serious and therefore, no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the civil application is also dismissed.
13.06.2005 (D.G. DESHPANDE,J.) .....
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 — ss. 22, 36(a)(3), 36(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Jun 2005. The bench was D G DESHPANDE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.