https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172968 In temple scheme modification proceedings, the Court held that appointment of an Executive Officer is not automatic and requires a factual basis showing necessity; absent proved mismanagement, a drastic displacement of the trustee cannot be ordered merely on administrative preference, and the direction appointing an Executive Officer was set aside. The clause preserving power to add trustees in future was upheld because it did not mandate immediate addition, only recognised a contingent power if necessity arose. The scheme was otherwise sustained with only ancillary modifications, leaving the trustee in charge subject to the Act. en-us Mon, 08 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:55:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172968 In temple scheme modification proceedings, the Court held that appointment of an Executive Officer is not automatic and requires a factual basis showing necessity; absent proved mismanagement, a drastic displacement of the trustee cannot be ordered merely on administrative preference, and the direction appointing an Executive Officer was set aside. The clause preserving power to add trustees in future was upheld because it did not mandate immediate addition, only recognised a contingent power if necessity arose. The scheme was otherwise sustained with only ancillary modifications, leaving the trustee in charge subject to the Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172968