Case Note & Summary
The revision petition was filed by the original defendant, Vijay Raghurama Shetty, challenging an order of the City Civil Court, Bombay dated 01.07.2011 in Suit No. 1210 of 2011, which held that the court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The suit was filed by Baun Foundation Trust (a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950) and its trustees against the defendant, who was a former trustee. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's term as trustee ended on 21.03.2011 and was not renewed, but he continued to interfere in the trust's administration. They sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering the trust premises and interfering with the trust's affairs. The defendant contended that the suit was barred under Sections 50 and 51 of the BPT Act, which require prior sanction of the Charity Commissioner for suits relating to the administration of a public trust. The trial court rejected this contention, holding that the suit was maintainable. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, reasoning that the bar under Sections 50 and 51 applies only to suits concerning the administration of the trust or the appointment/removal of trustees. Since the defendant had already ceased to be a trustee, the suit for injunction against him as a former trustee did not relate to the administration of the trust and did not require prior sanction. The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court's jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Bar under Sections 50 and 51 of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Suit for injunction against former trustee - The court held that the suit for injunction against a former trustee who has ceased to be a trustee does not require prior sanction of the Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 and 51 of the BPT Act, as the bar applies only to suits relating to the administration of the trust or the appointment/removal of trustees. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction against a former trustee of a public charitable trust without prior sanction of the Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the order of the City Civil Court that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court held that the suit for injunction against a former trustee does not require prior sanction under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of civil court
- bar under Sections 50 and 51 of Bombay Public Trust Act
- 1950
- suit for injunction against former trustee
- prior sanction of Charity Commissioner
- interpretation of Section 50 and 51
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (09) 48
Civil Revision Application No. 530 of 2011
Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhkoni, Senior Counsel and Mr. Z. Andhyaruzina, Advocate with Mr. Amit Vyas, Advocate and Mr. Sanjay Israni, Advocate with Mr. S. Singh and Ms. Nikita Ajwani with Mr. Melvyn Fernandes, Advocates i/b. M/s. Rajani Associates for the Applicant. Mr. D. D. Madon, Senior Counsel with Mr. Ravi Gandhi, Advocate i/b. M/s. Kanga & Co. for Respondents.
Mr. Vijay Raghurama Shetty
Baun Foundation Trust and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application challenging the order of the City Civil Court holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction against a former trustee of a public charitable trust.
Remedy Sought
The revision petitioner (original defendant) sought to set aside the trial court's order on jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The defendant contended that the suit was barred under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for want of prior sanction of the Charity Commissioner.
Previous Decisions
The City Civil Court, Bombay by order dated 01.07.2011 in Suit No. 1210 of 2011 held that it has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.
Issues
Whether the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for injunction against a former trustee of a public charitable trust without prior sanction of the Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Submissions/Arguments
The revision petitioner argued that the suit relates to the administration of the trust and therefore prior sanction of the Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 and 51 of the BPT Act is mandatory.
The respondents contended that the suit is against a former trustee who has ceased to be a trustee, and the bar under Sections 50 and 51 does not apply to such suits.
Ratio Decidendi
The bar under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 applies only to suits relating to the administration of a public trust or the appointment/removal of trustees. A suit for injunction against a former trustee who has ceased to be a trustee does not relate to the administration of the trust and is not barred, and the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain it.
Judgment Excerpts
The revision petitioner – original defendant is taking exception to the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay on 01.07.2011 in Suit No. 1210 of 2011 holding that the Court does have jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit.
It is also contended in the plaint itself that Suit is entertainable in the absence of prior sanction of Charity Commissioner as provided under Sections 50 and 51 of the BPT Act.
Procedural History
The original plaintiffs filed Suit No. 1210 of 2011 in the City Civil Court, Bombay seeking injunction against the defendant. The defendant raised an objection regarding jurisdiction, which was rejected by the trial court on 01.07.2011. The defendant then filed Civil Revision Application No. 530 of 2011 in the High Court challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950: 50, 51
