Disposed¶25

Irfan Nuroolhuda Shaikh Siddqui v. Abdul Rahim Ebrahim Kavlarikar and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jul 2025WP/8926/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petition (WP 8926 of 2025, N. J. Jamadar J., 9 July 2025); challenge to Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane order dated 5 June 2002 accepting compromise under Section 51, Maharashtra Public Trust Act 1950 (Application No. 3 of 2001); permanent Trusteeship for family members/relatives of Founder and Donor; non-impleadment of other Trustees; permission to sue for modification of scheme; remitted to Assistant Charity Commissioner; no adjudication on merits; contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to the Petitioner to file an appropriate proceeding before the Assistant Charity Commissioner on the grounds available in law; the Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide such application in accordance with law, with all contentions kept open. ¶25

Irfan Nuroolhuda Shaikh Siddqui vs Abdul Rahim Ebrahim Kavlarikar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 5th June 2002 of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane, accepting the compromise and disposing of Application No. 3 of 2001 could stand, given the Petitioner's grounds that the other Trustees were not impleaded as parties and that the proceeding was instituted only to seek permission to institute a suit for modification of the scheme.

¶21

Court's answer

Having noted that the impugned order is dated 5th June 2002 and that prima facie the Chairman of the Trust has signed the terms of settlement, the Court considered it appropriate that the Petitioner files an appropriate proceeding before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, on the grounds available in law, instead of granting relief in the writ petition.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

If such an application is filed, the Assistant Charity Commissioner shall decide it in accordance with law; the Court expressly clarified that it has not entered into the merits of the matter and all contentions are kept open for consideration.

¶24

Key takeaways

Prima facie observation that the Chairman of the Trust has signed the terms of the settlement recorded while declining to decide the matter in writ jurisdiction.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Civil Appellate Jurisdiction challenging an order dated 5th June 2002 of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane, by which the compromise between the Respondents and the then Respondent/Trustees was accepted and Application No. 3 of 2001 (purportedly under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act 1950) was disposed of; under the settlement, two members of the family or relatives of the Founder and Donor of the Trust were to be permanent Trustees. The Petitioner contended that the other Trustees were not impleaded and that the proceeding, being one for permission to institute a suit for modification of the scheme, could not culminate in acceptance of settlement terms. The Court noted the order's date and that prima facie the Chairman of the Trust had signed the settlement terms, but declined to decide the merits. Holding that it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to approach the Assistant Charity Commissioner afresh on grounds available in law, and that any such application shall be decided by that authority in accordance with law, the Court made clear it had not entered into the merits and kept all contentions open. Petition disposed.

¶1

11-WP-8926-2025.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8926 OF 2025

¶6

Irfan Nuroolhuda Shaikh Siddqui Versus

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Abdul Rahim Ebrahim Kavlarikar & Ors …Respondents

¶9

Mr. Vijay Patil, i/b Rohan Sonawane and Krutik Veera, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 7 & 8.

¶11

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 9^th JULY 2025

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

ARUN

¶15

RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶16

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.07.10 08:58:25 +0530

¶17

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 5^th June 2002 passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Thane, accepting the compromise between the Respondents and the then Respondent/Trustees and dispose of the Application No. 3 of 2001, purportedly filed under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act 1950. Under the terms of settlement, the parties to the said proceeding, inter alia, agreed that two members of the family or relatives of the Founder and Donor of the Trust, would be permanent Trustees.

¶18

1/2

¶19

11-WP-8926-2025.DOC

¶20

Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the

¶21

other Trustees were not impleaded as parties to the said proceeding. Moreover, the said proceeding was instituted seeking permission to institute a suit for modification of the scheme. Therefore, the Assistant Charity Commissioner could not have accepted the terms of settlement in the said proceeding.

¶22

The impugned order is passed on 5^th June 2002. Prima facie it appears that the Chairman of the Trust has signed the terms of the settlement.

¶23

In these circumstances, it would be appropriate that the Petitioner files an appropriate proceeding before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, on the grounds available in law.

¶24

In the event such an Application is filed, the Assistant Charity Commissioner shall decide the same in accordance with law. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not entered into merits of the matter. All contentions are kept open for consideration.

¶25

Petition disposed.

¶26

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶27

2/2

Irfan Nuroolhuda Shaikh Siddqui v. Abdul Rahim Ebrahim Kavlarikar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan Nuroolhuda Shaikh Siddqui v. Abdul Rahim Ebrahim Kavlarikar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shalini Chandrakant Bhatkar Since Decd. Thr. Her Son Sanjeev C. Bhatkar vs the Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate Dapoli and Ors.

Sunil Bhikaji Kanade vs Asb International Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

M/S Pyramid Alliance LLP through Its Partner Deepak Vilasrao Jagtap vs Karan Celista a Wing Co-Operative Housing Society Limited through Its Secretaryrahul Metkar

Ramniklal Shamji Patel and Ors. vs Jiyauddin Suleman Pira Since Deceased Thru. Legal Heirs and Ors.

Pratibha Uttam Shelke and Ors. vs Parashram Karbhari Shelke Dead and Ors.

Mohan Gangaram Narang vs City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Cidco and Ors.