Mr.Popatlal B. Shah v. Charity Commissioner
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr.Popatlal B. Shah : Petitioner versus Charity Commissioner Maharashtra State, Mumbai. : Respondent. Mrs. Gauri Jadhav for the petitioner. Mr.Vinay Sonpal, AGP, for the respondent. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. DATED : September 05, 2006. DATED : September 05, 2006. DATED : September 05, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who claims to be one of the Managing Trustees of the Trust by name Shri Bhanbai Nenshi Mahila Vidyalaya and an application under Section 36-1(A) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner before the Charity Commissioner vide Application No.64 of 2005.
This petition has been placed before us 2 2 2 for a limited relief i.e for direction to the Charity Commissioner to hear and decide the said application expeditiously. More so the trust is eager to dispose of the plot of land belonging to it, admeasuring about 2971 sq.mtrs, situated at Gulmohar Road, Juhu Vile Parle Development Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai.
This petition is disposed by directing the learned Charity Commissioner to hear and decide the said application on its own merits as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31st March 2007.
This order of disposal and giving direction to the Charity Commissioner be not read as an order to consider the application in favour of M/s.Aakanksha Construction for a lump sum price of Rs.61 crores and it is for the learned Charity Commissioner to take appropriate steps as per law. [B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J] [B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J] [B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.]
[NARESH H. PATIL, J]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 05 Sep 2006. The bench was NARESH H PATIL.
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.