APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 9942 OF 2025 Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd v. Maharashtra Technical Education Society & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Quashed
ii)The impugned order stands quashedand set aside
Provisions considered
Judgment
2 WP 9942-25.DOCIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 9942 OF 2025 Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd...PetitionerVersusMaharashtra Technical Education Society & anr.…RespondentsMr. Yuvraj Narvankar (through VC) a/w Raufa Shaikh, Ms. Radhika Kurdukar, for the Petitioner. Mr. R S Apte, Sr. Advocate, a/w Padmanabh Pise i/b P Padmanabh & Associates, for the Respondent No. 1. Ms. Savina Crasto, AGP for the Respondent – State.CORAM :N. J. JAMADAR, J.DATE :20th APRIL 2026 Oral Order :1.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, on 02nd April, 2025, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 73A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 (‘the Act, 1950’) seeking intervention in the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 –Trust under Section 36A of the Act, 1950, seeking permission of the Charity Commissioner to raise a loan from a bank, came tobe rejected.
The learned Charity Commissioner has recorded that, the perusal of the documents relied upon by the petitioner showsSAINATH, PA 1/4 2 WP 9942-25.DOCthat there was not a single document filed by the petitioner as to how it was interested in the loan application filed by the Trust, nor there was any statement as to how the assistance of thepetitioner/intervenor would be helpful in deciding the loan application.
The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit. A copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Control dated 09thOctober, 1962 is annexed to the additional affidavit (Annexure –A). The said resolution indicates that, the petitioner Companywas admitted as a member of Respondent No. 1 – Trust, being apart of three companies of the then Walchand Group.
In the additional affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent, the said factum of the passing of the resolution and admission of the petitioner as as a member of the Trust is not controverted. It is the contention of the Respondent No. 1 –Trust that, the members list sought to be relied upon by the petitioner was not tendered before the learned CharityCommissioner, and, even otherwise, the said members list was aprovisional and not a final list.
Prima facie, this Court finds that, the petitioner had placed material on record in the form of the resolution passed by the Board of Control, which indicated that, the petitioner wasSAINATH, PA 2/4 2 WP 9942-25.DOCadmitted as a member of the Respondent No. 1 – Trust. In the face of such material, the learned Charity Commissioner could not have rejected the application by making an observation that, the petitioner had failed to place on record a single document to show as to how it was interested in the loan application.
Though Mr. Narvankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised other points, this Court consciously refrains from adverting to the submissions, canvassed by Mr.Narvankar, and controverted by Mr. Apte, the learned SeniorAdvocate, as this Court is of the view that, the application for intervention is required to be decided afresh by the learnedCharity Commissioner after considering the entire material on record.
Hence, the following order:-: :
Operative part
O R D E R : : i)The Writ petition thus stands allowed.ii)The impugned order stands quashed and set aside.iii)The application for intervention in LoanApplication No. 58/2023 stands restored to the file of the learned Charity Commissioner. SAINATH, PA 3/4 2 WP 9942-25.DOCiv)The learned Charity Commissioner is requested to hear and decide the application for intervention under Section 73A of the Act,1950 afresh, after considering the entire material on record and providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, without being influenced by the observations in the impugned order and this order as well. v)The parties shall appear before the learned Charity Commissioner on 22nd April,2026. The learned Charity Commissionershall first decide the application for intervention and, thereafter, depending on the outcome of the application, hear and decide the Application No. 58/2023.vi)All the contentions of all the parties are expressly kept open for consideration by the learned Charity Commissioner. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]SAINATH, PA 4/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: ii)The impugned order stands quashedand set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 — s. 73A.
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.