Dismissed

Arvind Thakorlal Vaidya and Anr. v. Deepak Motiram Ghone and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2009LPA/299/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal against an interim order admitting a writ petition regarding trust management. The court held no error was committed in allowing the disputed trustee to function with restrictions on alienating property, and dismissed the appeal and civil application.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Application dismissed; interim arrangement continues.

Arvind Thakorlal Vaidya and Anr. Vs Deepak Motiram Ghone… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 .{1}.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.299 OF 2007
 AGAINST
 WRIT PETITION NO.5698 OF 2007
 ---
 WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.400 OF 2007
 IN

¶4

 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.299 OF 2007

¶5

 Shri.Arvind Thakorlal Vaidya
 and another. ..Appellants.
 -Versus-

¶6

 Shri.Deepak Motiram Ghone
 and others. ..Respondents.

¶7

 ....
 Mr.C.U.Singh, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mr.Shriram S.
 Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellants.

¶8

 Mr.V.A.Thorat, Sr.Advocate i/b. Shri.Surel S. Shah,
 Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶9

 Mr.R.M. Patne, A.G.P., for the respondent Nos.10 & 11.

¶10

CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶11

DATED : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009.
 P.C.:-

¶12

 1. Heard.

¶13

 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred
 impugning the interim order passed by the learned

¶14

 .{2}.

¶15

 Single Judge while admitting the Petition.

¶16

 3. The matter pertains to management of the Trust
 which owns immovable property and the issue between
 the parties is appointment of trustees which was the
 subject matter of challenge before the learned Single
 Judge.

¶17

 4. In the given facts situation, we do not find
 that the learned Single Judge has committed an error
 or illegality in permitting the trustee whose
 appointment is under dispute to continue to function
 with a rider that "they would not take any decision
 with regard to alienating or encumbering the trust
 property or take major policy decisions until this
 Petition is heard finally." The learned Single Judge
 has also expedited the hearing of the Petition.

¶18

 5. We are not supposed to go into the merits of the
 matter and other proceedings pending between the
 parties, as we have already observed. Hence, the
 interim arrangement is to continue till the Petition
 is decided in terms of the impugned order.

¶19

 .{3}.

¶20

 6. It will be open to the learned Counsel for the
 parties to approach the learned Single Judge to seek
 a fixed date for hearing of the petition for which
 the counsel for the respondents has no objection,
 irrespective of a reference in the matter pending
 before the Division Bench.

¶21

 7. We further make it clear that the other
 proceedings pending before the learned Charity
 Commissioner can proceed on its own merits and to be
 disposed of in accordance with law.

¶22

 8. With the above observations, this Letters Patent
 Appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the
 Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application is also
 disposed of.

¶23

[J.N.PATEL,J.]

¶24

[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Arvind Thakorlal Vaidya and Anr. v. Deepak Motiram Ghone and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Thakorlal Vaidya and Anr. v. Deepak Motiram Ghone and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Changdev Shankar Sargule Vs the State of Maharastra and Anr.

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi Vs the Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane Dist. and Ors.

Rajesh Gupta Vs Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika and 2 Ors.

Arvind Thakorlal Vaidya and Anr. Vs Deepak Motiram Ghone and Ors.

Shri.Narayen Ugar Vs Shri.Mukunmd Ugar and Anr.

Mr. Sachin Saharad Kamble Vs 1. Navi Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Transport Service and Anr.