Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2004

High Court: Bombay High Court
Admin
2026-08-09 03:03:56
  • 8
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

The scope of the powers and duties of the Trustees in developing trust property and the powers of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the BPT Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Trustees' duty to maximize benefit of trust property
  • Charity Commissioner's role to safeguard trust interest in property development
  • Requirement of sanction under Section 36 of BPT Act for alienation of trust property
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (09) 63

Letter Patent Appeal No. 449 of 2004, Letter Patent Appeal No. 454 of 2004, Letter Patent Appeal No. 448 of 2004

2005-09-23

H.L. Gokhale, Smt. R.S. Dalvi

B.P. Apte, S.S. Kulkarni, Mahendra Shah, Ranjit More, S.M. Oak, R.L. Majgaonkar, S.G. Deshmukh, Nitin Thakkar, Bhandare, Suman Jain, K.S. Bapat, S.R. Nargolkar

Mr.A.R.Khan Construwell & Co.; Al-Haj Ajmal Sarfaraj Khan; Wasim Sujauddin Pirjade; Ahmed Dagumiya Shaikh; Murtaz Abdul Razak Chanegav; Abdul Razak N. Chanegaon; Rafique N. Chanegaon; Iqbal Gafoor Shaikh

Youth Education & Welfare Society, Silver Realtors Pvt. Ltd., National (India) Contractors & Engineers, M/s. Suyojit Buildech Pvt. Ltd., Joint Charity Commissioner, Nashik, State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the Charity Commissioner's sanction for development of a charitable trust's immovable property by leasing it to a developer.

Remedy Sought

Appellants challenged the sanction order and sought to set aside the Charity Commissioner's decision and the Single Judge's dismissal of their writ petitions.

Filing Reason

Appellants opposed the sanction claiming their objections were not correctly considered by the Charity Commissioner.

Previous Decisions

The Charity Commissioner granted sanction on 26 June 2003; the Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 1 October 2004.

Issues

The scope of the powers and duties of the Trustees in developing trust property and the powers of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the BPT Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants contended that their objections were not correctly considered by the Charity Commissioner.

Judgment Excerpts

The Trustees are enjoined to use and utilise the trust properties to the highest extent possible for a benefit and interest of the Trust and to attain the objects of the Trust. The tender of Respondent No.6 came to be accepted as Respondent No.6 agreed with each of the conditions under clauses 11 to 18 and qualified under clause 29 of the tender.

Procedural History

The first Respondent Trust applied to the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the BPT Act for sanction. The Charity Commissioner granted sanction on 26 June 2003. The Appellants filed writ petitions challenging the sanction, which were dismissed by a Single Judge on 1 October 2004. The present Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the Single Judge's order.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950: Section 36, Section 36(1)(b)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
charitable trust development tender lease Bombay Public Trusts Act Section 36 sanction Charity Commissioner hostel property trust property public notice transparency best price

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2004 2026-08-09 03:03:56
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Acquits Appellant in Corruption Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Failure to Prove Demand and Acceptance of Bribe. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as pr... 2026-08-09 03:03:56
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition acquittal natural justice murder Compensation burden of proof Limitation benefit of doubt Article 226 circumstantial evidence
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5184 OF 2026

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against School Tribunal's Denial of Reinstatement t...

Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. Objections...

Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones Delay Usin...

Supreme Court Upholds Defendant in Property Sale Deed Dispute; Non-Payment of Balance Cons...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Compulsory Retirement Case Based on Declining Performanc...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Sets Aside High Court Judgment for Non-Consideration of Addit...

Lost Your Password?