1958 (1) TMI 36 - HC - Indian Laws

Court appoints Receiver for trust property due to disputes within Managing Committee, upholding jurisdiction under Bombay Public Trusts Act.

Institute Indo-Portuguese And Versus Theotonio Borges And Ors.

The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial judge's decision to appoint a Court Receiver for the management of the trust property. The court ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of appointment and removal of Managing Committee members.2. Existence of disputes and deadlock within the Managing Committee.3. Appointment of a Receiver for the management of the trust property.4. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit and appoint a Receiver.5. Impact of the trust being subject to the Bombay Public Trusts Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Appointment and Removal of Managing Committee Members:The court examined the validity of the appointments and removals of the Managing Committee members of the trust. It was noted that J. Boadita was deported under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and subsequently, Mr. Leo Lawrence was appointed in his place. The Deputy Charity Commissioner accepted this change. However, Mr. Fonseca, the President, was also deported, and Mr. Leo Lawrence claimed to have been appointed as President. The plaintiffs contested the validity of these appointments, arguing that the proper procedures under the Legislative Diploma were not followed. The court observed that the notification issued by the Governor-General on 19-3-1957, which purported to remove defendants Nos. 2 and 3, did not automatically result in their removal without appropriate steps under the Bombay Public Trusts Act.2. Existence of Disputes and Deadlock within the Managing Committee:The court recognized the serious disputes and dissensions between defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on one side and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 on the other. These disputes had rendered the functioning of the trust impossible. The court noted that the plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking the removal of the Managing Committee members due to these disputes. The trial judge found that the charity was not functioning and that a deadlock had been created, making it imperative to appoint a Court Receiver.3. Appointment of a Receiver for the Management of the Trust Property:The court considered whether it was just and convenient to appoint a Receiver. It was observed that the Managing Committee was not properly constituted, and there was no clear evidence that the appointments of Mr. Leo Lawrence as President and other members were valid. The court found that the deadlock and lack of a properly constituted Managing Committee justified the appointment of a Court Receiver to manage the trust property during the pendency of the suit.4. Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain the Suit and Appoint a Receiver:The court addressed the jurisdictional challenge raised by Mr. Parpia, who argued that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or appoint a Receiver. The court held that the trust, being registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, was subject to its provisions. The court emphasized that the Deputy Charity Commissioner's decision, confirmed in appeal, that the trust was a public trust, was final and conclusive. The court also noted that the property and assets of the trust were situated in Bombay, and the beneficiaries were within the jurisdiction of the City of Bombay, thereby affirming the court's jurisdiction.5. Impact of the Trust Being Subject to the Bombay Public Trusts Act:The court highlighted that the trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, making it subject to the Act's provisions. The court dismissed the argument that the trust was a foreign charity, noting that it was created and intended to function within Bombay. The court concluded that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and appoint a Receiver for the management of the trust property, given the deadlock and disputes within the Managing Committee.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the trial judge's decision to appoint a Court Receiver for the management of the trust property. The court found that the disputes and deadlock within the Managing Committee, coupled with the lack of a properly constituted committee, justified the appointment of a Receiver. The court also affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain the suit and make the appointment, given that the trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and subject to its provisions.