Paraskumar Bhalchand Thole and Anr. v. Sureshmukarji Hukumchandji Kasliwal and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2010RA/23/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application regarding an order in the second appeal concerning the Bombay Public Trust Act, the court addressed challenges regarding locus standi under Section 72 and initiation procedures under Section 50-A. The judge found the impugned order passed after extensive hearing and rejected the review based on misinterpretations of the Act.

What did the court decide?

The review application is rejected.

Paraskumar Bhalchand Thole and Anr. Vs Sureshmukarji… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2008

¶4

Paraskumar s/oo Balchand Thole Applicant and another V E R S U S Sureshkumar s/o Hukumchandji Respondent Kasliwal and others

¶5

Shri.Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Shri. H. A. Joshi, Advocate for the applicants Shri. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate holding for Shri. S.S. Dambe, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 11 Shri.N.T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for respondents No. 13 to 25

¶6

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 12th July, 2010

¶7

ORAL ORDER

¶8

This review application is, according to Shri. Deshmukh, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, based on; an error apparent on the face of the record, and according to him, there is one another sufficient reason for interfering in the impugned order.

¶9

On the face of it, I found that the order impugned is passed after extensively hearing of the parties. My learned brother has given reasons on all points argued before him. Despite of this, Shri. Deshmukh tried to assert that the learned Judge committed error apparent on record, by ignoring the basic objection which the applicants had raised, when the matter was before the lowest Court. He pointed out that one Sureshkumar, who was not a trustee or a

¶10

¶11

member of the Trust etc, filed an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, to challenge the Judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. Shri. Deshmukh pointed out that Shri. Sureshkumar had no locus to make such application under Section 72. He said, neither this Court nor the learned District Judge considered this anomaly. Fortunately, this objection was raised when the Second Appeal was argued. This Court very clearly held that Section 72 of the Act does not require any qualification for making an application under Section 72. It says, any person aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 50-A within 60 days apply to the Court to set aside such decision.

¶12

Shri. Deshmukh further pointed out that Shri. Sureshkumar could not have made an application inviting the Assistant Charity Commissioner’s action under Section 50-A to frame the Scheme. He pointed out that the provisions of Section 50-A require two or more persons interested in the Scheme to make such application. The submission made by Shri. Deshmukh is incorrect. The action under Section 50-A was initiated by the Assistant Charity Commissioner suomoto when he received several complaints and when he received his Inspector's report. So, there was no question of two or more persons interested in the Trust making application under Section 50A. The review application stands rejected.

¶13

(A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)

¶14

srm/ra/23/10

Paraskumar Bhalchand Thole and Anr. v. Sureshmukarji Hukumchandji Kasliwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paraskumar Bhalchand Thole and Anr. v. Sureshmukarji Hukumchandji Kasliwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rukhminibai Trimbakrao and Others. Vs M.S.R.T.C.,Bombay and Others.

Narmadabai Balmukund Dalwale and Anr. Vs Smt Tarabairadhakisan Dalwale and Ors.

Zating Motiram Patil Vs Rukhmabai Pandit Patil and Anr.

Murlidhar Kishan Gundawa Vs Baliram Gangaram Talne and Ors.

Shivaji Baburao Gawande. Vs Sanjeevanibai Shivaji Gawande.

Kishor Pratapsing Pawar Vs Thenabai Soma Mahajan and Anr.