TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the trustees' alleged irregularities, including failure to protect trust properties, expenditure from trust funds, and construction or renovation without statutory permission, were proved to such a degree as to warrant removal under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Analysis: The proceeding for removal of a trustee is drastic in nature and the charge of misfeasance or malfeasance must be established by strong proof. Mere negligence or technical irregularities are insufficient. The evidence and the District Judge's report showed that some lapses were attributable to earlier trustees, some were technical, and the Charity Commissioner found that the respondents could not be held solely responsible for the alleged acts. The Court agreed that the alleged misconduct was not proved with the degree of certainty required for invoking the extreme power of removal.
Conclusion: The challenge to the Charity Commissioner's refusal to remove the trustees failed, and the finding that the case for action under Section 41-D was not made out was upheld against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Removal of a trustee under Section 41-D requires proof of serious misfeasance or malfeasance by a high standard, and drastic action is not warranted unless the trustee's lapse is clearly established as culpable and attributable to that trustee.
TaxTMI 
