Dismissed

Nandkishor Kannahyalal Agrawal v. the Khandesh Medical and Surgical Aid Society

Bombay HC3 Dec 2014LPA/15/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order by the Bombay High Court terminated the Bail Application. The Bench held that no documents substantiated the illness excuse for condoning the 85-day delay in the Letters Patent Appeal. Additionally, the applicant filed as a citizen where only an 'interested person' can invoke Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, leading to dismissal. The order dismissed both the appeal and

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Application were both dismissed with no costs.

Nandkishor Kannahyalal Agrawal Vs the Khandesh Medical… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

C.A. No. 4418 of 2011 & L.P.A. Stamp No. 3531 / 2011

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

Civil Application No. 4418 of 2011 (In L.P.A. Stamp No. 3531 / 2011)

¶5

With

¶6

Letters Patent Appeal Stamp No. 3531 / 2011

¶7

Nandkishor s/o. Kanhailal Agarwal, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Agra Road, Pach Kandil Area, Taluka & District : Dhule. .. Applicant / Appellant.

¶8

versus

¶9

The Khandesh Medical & Surgical Aid Society, East Khandesh, Taluka : Amalner, District : Jalgaon, Through its Trustees, A) Maheshkumar s/o. Maganlal Agarwal B) Rakesh s/o. Subhash Agarwal. .. Non-applicants / Respondents.

¶10

Mr. B.S. Shinde, Advocate, for the applicant - appellant.

¶11

Respondent no.1-A served (Absent).

¶12

Mr. S.S. Rathi, Advocate, for respondent no.1-B (Absent).

¶13

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶14

A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 3RD DECEMBER 2014

¶16

(2) C.A. No. 4418 of 2011 & L.P.A. Stamp No. 3531 / 2011

¶17

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶18

Heard Adv. Mr. B.S. Shinde for the applicant - appellant. Nobody for the non-applicants - respondents.

¶19

Prayer is to condone delay of 85 days in filing Letters Patent Appeal.

¶20

Before proceeding to hear the request for condonation of delay on merits, as nobody appears for respondents, we have also heard learned Counsel for the applicant - appellant on merits of LPA.

¶21

The delay of 85 days is sought to be condoned on the ground that mother of applicant was unwell and he was required to be moved from Dhule to Pune and thereafter to Mumbai for further treatment. It is also mentioned that a week before filing of application, she expired.

¶22

The statements are made on affidavit. But there are no documents to show ill-health or then shifting of mother. The applicant claims to be a businessman and he has also not explained what happened to his business in the meanwhile.

¶23

Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15th October 2010, shows that the present applicant - appellant did not point out his interest in the Public Trust. Change Report proceedings under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, were under consideration and present applicant sought intervention in it.

¶24

(3) C.A. No. 4418 of 2011 & L.P.A. Stamp No. 3531 / 2011

¶25

The application itself states that the applicant is not member of the Trust. He filed that application as a citizen.

¶26

Under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, there is a concept of ‘interested person’ . These proceedings can be moved by persons who can demonstrate themselves to be persons interested. As the applicant did not disclose that status, learned Single Judge cannot be said to be at fault in disposing the Writ Petition which challenged the order of Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Assistant Charity Commissioner has also rightly rejected the prayer for intervention.

¶27

We find no substance in the application for condonation of delay as well as the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶28

Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal and Civil Application are dismissed. No costs.

¶29

( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

puranik / CA4418.11

Nandkishor Kannahyalal Agrawal v. the Khandesh Medical and Surgical Aid Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkishor Kannahyalal Agrawal v. the Khandesh Medical and Surgical Aid Society

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

M/S. Y.Ramchandra Reddy Yeture Vs State of Maharashtra

Aba Bapu Dange Died Lrs Jalindar Vaijanath Dange and Others Vs Vishwanath Bhaurao Morale Died Lrs Bayasakhubai and Others

Akash Omprakash Somani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nandkishor Kannahyalal Agrawal Vs the Khandesh Medical and Surgical Aid Society

Nandkishor Kannahyalal Agrawal Vs the Khandesh Medical and Surgical Aid Society

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Ramrao Laxman Padre