https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310547 A plaint challenging trust administration and seeking recovery of trust funds was treated as falling within the Bombay Public Trusts Act, so prior consent of the Charity Commissioner was a condition precedent; its absence attracted rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d). The suit was also found barred to the extent it followed withdrawal of an earlier action without liberty under Order XXIII Rule 1, and the plaint disclosed no real cause of action against certain defendants because it contained only bald allegations without the particulars required for fraud or collusion. The plaint was rejected in entirety. en-us Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:38:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310547 A plaint challenging trust administration and seeking recovery of trust funds was treated as falling within the Bombay Public Trusts Act, so prior consent of the Charity Commissioner was a condition precedent; its absence attracted rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d). The suit was also found barred to the extent it followed withdrawal of an earlier action without liberty under Order XXIII Rule 1, and the plaint disclosed no real cause of action against certain defendants because it contained only bald allegations without the particulars required for fraud or collusion. The plaint was rejected in entirety. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310547