https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304605 Removal of a trustee under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act requires clear proof of serious misfeasance or malfeasance; mere negligence, technical irregularities, or lapses not shown to be attributable to the trustee are insufficient for the drastic remedy. On the evidence, some alleged defaults were linked to earlier trustees and others were only technical, so the Charity Commissioner's view that the respondents could not be held solely responsible was sustained. The challenge to the refusal to remove the trustees therefore failed, and the finding that the case for action under Section 41-D was not made out was upheld. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2022 17:14:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304605 Removal of a trustee under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act requires clear proof of serious misfeasance or malfeasance; mere negligence, technical irregularities, or lapses not shown to be attributable to the trustee are insufficient for the drastic remedy. On the evidence, some alleged defaults were linked to earlier trustees and others were only technical, so the Charity Commissioner's view that the respondents could not be held solely responsible was sustained. The challenge to the refusal to remove the trustees therefore failed, and the finding that the case for action under Section 41-D was not made out was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304605