Partly allowed

Jitendra Marutirao Shinde and Ors. v. Shivajirao Shridharrao More and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2013WP/874/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an application under Section 73-A of Bombay Public Trusts Act for certain petitioners to be added as parties to pending change report proceedings, while rejecting it for two others, based on the list of members submitted by a respondent, without deciding on final membership status.

What did the court decide?

Application to be added as party allowed for petitioners 2 to 5 and 7 to 9; rejected for petitioners 1 and 6.

Jitendra Marutirao Shinde and Ors. Vs Shivajirao… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 874.2013 WP

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 874 OF 2013

¶4

1] Jitendra S/o Marutirao Shinde, Age 55 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o New Balaji Nagar, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, District Osmanabad.

¶5

2] Dr. Maruti S/o Limbaji Sathe, Age 75 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Makni, Tq. Lohara, District : Osmanabad.

¶6

3] Raosaheb S/o Manikrao Pawar, Age 74 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Naichakur, Tq. Omerga, District : Osmanabad.

¶7

4] Madhav S/o Ganpat Mane, Age 90 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Bedga, Tq. Omerga, District : Osmanabad.

¶8

5] Shivajirao s/o Bhimrao Jagtap, Age 72 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Ajay Nagar, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, District : Osmanabad.

¶9

6] Dhananjay S/o Nanasaheb Musande, Age 42 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Juni Peth, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, District : Osmanabad.

¶10

	2	874.2013 WP
7]	Ravindra S/o Vishwanathrao Gaikwad, Age 54 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Juni Peth, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, District : Osmanabad.
8]	Vyankatrao S/o Vishwanathrao Gaikwad, Age 61 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Juni Peth, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, District : Osmanabad.
9]	Dr. Amit S/o Ramesh Patil, Age 55 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Juni Peth, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, District : Osmanabad. ..	Petitioners
	Versus
1]	Shivajirao S/o Shridharrao More, Age 55 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o New Balaji Naggar, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, Distrcict : Osmanabad
2]	Laxmanrao s/o Tatyarao More, Age 75 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o In front of Nagar Parishad, Omerga,Tq. Omerga, Distrcict : Osmanabad
3]	Vitthalrao s/o Krishnaji Patil, Age 82 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Savalsur, Tq. Omerga, District : Osmanabad. ..	Respondents

¶11

3 874.2013 WP

¶12

Shri S.R. Chavan, Advocate for petitioners Shri A.L. Tikle, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Shri J.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 3

¶13

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2013.

¶14

ORAL JUDGEMENT :

¶15

. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶16

2 The petitioners herein filed application at Exhibit 232, purportedly under Section 73-A of Bombay Public Trusts Act, requesting that petitioners be added as party to the proceedings. The said application is filed on 06/12/2012. The change report bearing No. 243/2011 is pending.

¶17

Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioners are not the members of the Trust, no documentary evidence is put forth before the Court showing that they are the members of the Trust. Even prima facie they cannot take aid of Section 73-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.

¶18

The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supports the

¶19

4 874.2013 WP

¶20

petition and submits that in the list of members submitted by the present respondent No. 1, the names of petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 9 appears in the list of members, they had also participated in the election held in the year 2003. In a change report proceedings, the members interested in the Trust can participate.

¶21

No doubt, there is delay on the part of the petitioners to file the application, however, the proceedings are still pending. This Court has earlier in Writ Petition No. 10416/2012 and other connected Writ Petitions, directed to conduct the proceedings day to day, and the proceedings are going on. It is said that even 60 witnesses are examined, and now the proceedings is for final arguments.

¶22

Prima facie there is no record in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 & 6 that at any point of time they were the members of the Trust. The names of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 9 appear in the list submitted by the respondent No. 1. In view of that, the application at Exhibit 232 is allowed to the extent of petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 9. The said application is rejected to the extent of petitioner No. 1-Jintendra and petitioner No. 6-

¶23

5 874.2013 WP

¶24

Dhananjay. This order is being passed only on the count that the name of petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 9 appear in the list submitted by respondent No. 1. This order would not be construed as any decision on the aspect of membership.

¶25

The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 9 shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the proceedings, without seeking adjournments.

¶26

. Rule made absolute in above terms. No Costs.

¶27

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶28

SDM*/March-2013

Jitendra Marutirao Shinde and Ors. v. Shivajirao Shridharrao More and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Marutirao Shinde and Ors. v. Shivajirao Shridharrao More 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

The State of Mah.and Others. Vs Balwant Gangadhar Kant.and Others.

Dhondiba Hanumantrao Bhandare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Executive Engineer (Civil and Construction), Mse Dist. Co. Vs Shivaji Kisan Mohite and Anr.

Shekhar Ramesh Chaudhari Vs Lakdu Sajan Bhat and Ors.

Kishor Rangnath Walunje Vs the Additional Collector, Aurangabad and Others

Kishore Laxminarayan Mantri and Others Vs Prabhawati Vijay Kulkarni and Others