https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304606 Locus standi existed for the appellants to challenge the exoneration of trustees of Group "G" because the proceedings under the Bombay Public Trust Act were initiated against the trustees as a group and the appellants were aggrieved by that exoneration. Removal for malfeasance or misfeasance under Section 41D required reliable proof of active participation or connivance, so the findings were sustainable only against appellant Nos. 1 and 4 and not against the remaining appellants. The salary-underpayment finding was likewise justified only against appellant Nos. 1 and 4. The broad direction authorising Group "G" to administer the trust and appoint trustees was not sustainable in the form granted. en-us Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2022 17:20:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304606 Locus standi existed for the appellants to challenge the exoneration of trustees of Group "G" because the proceedings under the Bombay Public Trust Act were initiated against the trustees as a group and the appellants were aggrieved by that exoneration. Removal for malfeasance or misfeasance under Section 41D required reliable proof of active participation or connivance, so the findings were sustainable only against appellant Nos. 1 and 4 and not against the remaining appellants. The salary-underpayment finding was likewise justified only against appellant Nos. 1 and 4. The broad direction authorising Group "G" to administer the trust and appoint trustees was not sustainable in the form granted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304606