Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Santosh Agrawal, and respondent no.2, Rambhau Mahajan, were founder members of the trust 'Shri Sadashivrao Patil Shikshan Sanstha, Kamptee', which was initially registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and later deemed a trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The appellant filed a Change Report No.229/1992 before the Deputy Charity Commissioner (DCC) seeking to record changes in the trust's membership following an election held on 06/01/1991. The DCC rejected the Change Report, but on appeal, the Joint Charity Commissioner (JCC) allowed the appeal and accepted the Change Report. The appellant then filed a revision application before the Additional District Judge, which was dismissed, leading to the present first appeal before the High Court. The appellant's grievance was that the meeting of the executive committee on 24/09/1990 and the general meeting on 06/01/1991 were not properly convened, as he and respondent no.2 were not given 15 days' notice as required by the Memorandum of Association. He alleged that outsiders were inducted as members and that the election was invalid. The respondents contended that proper notices were given and the election was valid. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellant failed to prove that the meeting was invalid due to lack of notice. The court noted that the JCC had considered the evidence, including the fact that the appellant had participated in subsequent meetings, and concluded that the election was valid. The court held that the findings of the JCC were based on evidence and were not perverse, and therefore, no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the JCC accepting the Change Report was upheld.
Headnote
A) Trust Law - Change Report - Section 22 Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Validity of Election of Members - The issue was whether the election of new members of the Trust held on 06/01/1991 was valid despite the appellant and respondent no.2 not receiving 15 days' notice as per the Memorandum of Association. The court held that the Joint Charity Commissioner's order accepting the Change Report was justified as the appellant failed to prove that the meeting was invalid due to lack of notice, and the election was conducted in accordance with the Trust's rules. (Paras 2-5) B) Trust Law - Notice of Meeting - Section 22 Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Requirement of 15 Days' Notice - The appellant contended that the meeting of 06/01/1991 was invalid because 15 days' notice was not given to him and respondent no.2. The court found that the appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to establish that the notice was not given, and the Joint Charity Commissioner's finding that the election was valid was based on the evidence on record. (Paras 3-5) C) Trust Law - Appeal against Charity Commissioner's Order - Section 72 Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Scope of Interference - The court held that the appellate court should not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Charity Commissioner unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the Joint Charity Commissioner's order was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election of new members of the Trust held on 06/01/1991 was valid despite the alleged lack of proper notice to the appellant and respondent no.2, and whether the Joint Charity Commissioner was justified in accepting the Change Report No.229/1992.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner accepting the Change Report No.229/1992.
Law Points
- Bombay Public Trust Act
- 1950
- Section 22
- Change Report
- Notice of Meeting
- Valid Election
- Trust Membership
