<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (10) TMI 1374 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467201</link>
    <description>Section 73A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act allows impleadment only by a person having an interest in the public trust, and for a society or other trust that interest must be that of a member, trustee, or beneficiary. A beneficiary is confined to a person entitled to benefit under the trust objects. Proceedings under Section 36A(3) are limited to deciding whether borrowing is in the trust&#039;s interest and on what conditions sanction should be granted. Where an applicant lacks a subsisting qualifying interest and seeks mainly to reopen a management dispute, intervention is not justified because it would distort the limited statutory inquiry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 23:34:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 1374 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467201</link>
      <description>Section 73A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act allows impleadment only by a person having an interest in the public trust, and for a society or other trust that interest must be that of a member, trustee, or beneficiary. A beneficiary is confined to a person entitled to benefit under the trust objects. Proceedings under Section 36A(3) are limited to deciding whether borrowing is in the trust&#039;s interest and on what conditions sanction should be granted. Where an applicant lacks a subsisting qualifying interest and seeks mainly to reopen a management dispute, intervention is not justified because it would distort the limited statutory inquiry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>