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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Trustee suit rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lacking charity commissioner consent under sections 50-51 Bombay Public Trusts Act</h1> <h3>Rajiv K. Mehta Versus Rekha H. Sheth and Ors.</h3> Rajiv K. Mehta Versus Rekha H. Sheth and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.2. Whether prior consent of the Charity Commissioner was required before filing the suit under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.3. Whether the plaintiff had the liberty to file a fresh suit after withdrawing the previous suit.4. Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against defendants nos. 12, 15, and 16.Detailed Analysis:1. Bar under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950:The court noted that the plaintiff's status as a trustee and the status of some defendants as purported trustees were pending before the Charity Commissioner. The court held that since these issues were pending adjudication under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide such questions, invoking the bar under Section 80 of the Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Church of North India, which established that the Bombay Public Trust Act is a complete code in itself, providing a complete machinery for resolving such disputes.2. Consent of the Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 and 51:The court observed that the suit involved allegations of breach of trust, negligence, misapplication, and misconduct by trustees, which fell under Sections 50(i), (ii)(a), (d), and (f) of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The court emphasized that prior consent of the Charity Commissioner was mandatory for filing such suits. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shree Gollaleshwar Dev, which held that suits involving trust property and trustees required the Charity Commissioner's consent. The court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to obtain such consent attracted the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, leading to the rejection of the plaint.3. Liberty to File a Fresh Suit:The court examined whether the plaintiff had sought and obtained liberty to file a fresh suit while withdrawing the previous suit. The court found no evidence that the plaintiff had applied for such liberty. The court noted that the plaintiff's praecipe for clarification did not indicate any application for liberty to file a fresh suit. The court referred to several judgments, including Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha and Devidas Tulsiram Brijwani, emphasizing that explicit permission or a clear application for liberty to file a fresh suit was necessary. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not have the liberty to file a fresh suit, making the current suit barred under Order 23 Rule 1(3) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. Cause of Action Against Defendants Nos. 12, 15, and 16:The court scrutinized the plaint to determine if it disclosed any cause of action against defendants nos. 12, 15, and 16. The court noted that the allegations against these defendants were vague and lacked specific particulars of fraud or misappropriation as required under Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society and T. Arivandandan, which stressed the need for clear and specific allegations to establish a cause of action. The court concluded that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against defendants nos. 12, 15, and 16, leading to the rejection of the plaint against these defendants as well.Conclusion:The court rejected the plaint in Suit No. 2521 of 2008, holding that the suit was barred under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, lacked the necessary consent of the Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 and 51, and did not disclose any cause of action against defendants nos. 12, 15, and 16. The court disposed of the notice of motions accordingly, with no order as to costs.