Letters Patent Appeal No. 48 of 2009 · High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Patent Appeal stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ss. 50, 51
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. We have perused the provisions of Section 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not notice any glaring error or perversity in the Order passed by the learned Single Judge…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.48 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2052 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders Shri.S.T. Shelke Advocate for Appellant.. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2010.
Heard. Learned counsel Shri. Shelke submits that the application filed by the Respondent for seeking permission under Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, for filing Suit under Section 50 of the Act is not maintainable. The Respondent does not have a legal right to claim relief as asked for, as reflected in the application. The counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge committed error in rejecting the 2 Court’s or Judge’s Orders Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Petition.
Operative part
We have perused the provisions of Section 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not notice any glaring error or perversity in the Order passed by the learned Single Judge to exercise our jurisdiction under Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/SEPT10/lpa48.09
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Patent Appeal stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 — ss. 50, 51.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Sep 2010. The bench was K K TATED, 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.