TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds removal of President & Treasurer from trusteeship for malfeasance. Other appellants exonerated.</h1> <h3>Mallikarjuanappa and Ors. Versus Joint Charity Commissioner and Ors.</h3> The court upheld the removal of the President and Treasurer from trusteeship due to proven charges of malfeasance and misfeasance. However, it exonerated ... - Issues Involved:1. Locus standi of the appellants to challenge the exoneration of Group 'G' trustees.2. Whether the findings of malfeasance against the appellants by the First Appellate Court were perverse.3. Whether the findings of misfeasance regarding payment of less salaries were perverse.4. Jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court in directing Group 'G' to take over administration.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Locus Standi of the Appellants:The appellants challenged the exoneration of Group 'G' trustees, asserting their right to appeal despite the original applicant not challenging the exoneration. The court held that the appellants had locus standi because the charges were framed jointly against both groups based on the appellants' application, making them aggrieved parties. Therefore, the appeal was maintainable.2. Findings of Malfeasance Against the Appellants:The Joint Charity Commissioner and the First Appellate Court found that the appellants, particularly the President and Treasurer, were guilty of collecting donations from students without accounting for them, constituting malfeasance. The court noted that the standard of proof required in such quasi-civil and quasi-criminal proceedings is high. The evidence showed that donations were collected by close relatives of the President, and the funds were not accounted for, supporting the charge of malfeasance. However, the court found that only the President and Treasurer were directly involved, and other appellants were not proven to have participated or had knowledge of the malfeasance.3. Findings of Misfeasance Regarding Payment of Less Salaries:The First Appellate Court found that less salaries were paid to employees, constituting misfeasance. The court upheld this finding, noting that documentary evidence and witness testimonies corroborated the claim. However, similar to the malfeasance charge, only the President and Treasurer were found directly responsible, while other trustees were not proven to be involved.4. Jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court:The First Appellate Court directed Group 'G' trustees to take over the administration, which was challenged. The court found that this direction exceeded the First Appellate Court's jurisdiction. The court emphasized that removal of a trustee is a drastic action requiring strong proof of involvement in misfeasance or malfeasance. The court concluded that the First Appellate Court's direction for Group 'G' to appoint new trustees was improper without substantial evidence against the exonerated trustees.Conclusion:The court upheld the removal of the President and Treasurer from trusteeship due to proven charges of malfeasance and misfeasance. However, it exonerated the other appellants, finding insufficient evidence of their direct involvement. The court also dismissed the appeal regarding the exoneration of Group 'G' trustees, affirming that the findings against them were not to be disturbed. The direction for Group 'G' to take over administration was set aside, and the appellants, except the President and Treasurer, were entitled to continue as trustees.
TaxTMI 
