Smt. Nand Kantaben Janubhai Yodh (dead) by LRs. Vs. Dipsinh Gambhirsinh Thakor & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 339 of 1987
Petitioner: Smt. Nand Kantaben Janubhai Yodh (dead) by LRs.
Respondent: Dipsinh Gambhirsinh Thakor & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 339 of 1987
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 18, 2000
Head Note:
TRUSTS
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
Sections 70,72 – Joint Charity Commissioner examining some preliminary issues – Against that application under Section 72 to City Civil Judge – Court holding that there was no effective disposal under Section 70 hence question under Section 72 cannot be considered – Writ against that, dismissed. Held that there was no reason for Civil Court or High Court to interfere. Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 2,3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. An application was filed before the
City Civil Court at Ahmedabad under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts
Act, 1950 against the order dated 27.2.1980 given by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Before the Joint Charity Commissioner, three preliminary issues had been raised:
(1) Whether this inquiry is barred in view of disposal of inquiry no. 92/75 ?
(2) Whether this inquiry is barred by limitation or lapse of time ?
(3) Whether the inquiry is barred by the principles of res judicata ?
2. The findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner on preliminary issues were in the negative and the matter ended at that stage. Against that order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, the appellant preferred an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act before City Civil Judge. The City Civil Judge took the view that there is no effective disposal of the matter by the Joint Charity Commissioner and having not exercised his jurisdiction under Section 70(A) of the Act, question of examining the matter under Section 72(1) of the Act would not arise. Against that order a writ petition was filed in the High Court and the same was dismissed at the admission stage. Hence this appeal.
3. We do not think that there are any good reasons to interfere with the order made by the City Civil Judge and there was also no good reason for the High Court to interfere with the order made by the City Civil Judge in exercising its writ jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
4. We, however, make it clear that this order will not come in the way of the appellant to pursue other remedies as may be permissible under the law after disposal of the matter by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
1. An application was filed before the
City Civil Court at Ahmedabad under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts
Act, 1950 against the order dated 27.2.1980 given by the Joint Charity Commissioner. Before the Joint Charity Commissioner, three preliminary issues had been raised:
(1) Whether this inquiry is barred in view of disposal of inquiry no. 92/75 ?
(2) Whether this inquiry is barred by limitation or lapse of time ?
(3) Whether the inquiry is barred by the principles of res judicata ?
2. The findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner on preliminary issues were in the negative and the matter ended at that stage. Against that order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, the appellant preferred an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act before City Civil Judge. The City Civil Judge took the view that there is no effective disposal of the matter by the Joint Charity Commissioner and having not exercised his jurisdiction under Section 70(A) of the Act, question of examining the matter under Section 72(1) of the Act would not arise. Against that order a writ petition was filed in the High Court and the same was dismissed at the admission stage. Hence this appeal.
3. We do not think that there are any good reasons to interfere with the order made by the City Civil Judge and there was also no good reason for the High Court to interfere with the order made by the City Civil Judge in exercising its writ jurisdiction. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
4. We, however, make it clear that this order will not come in the way of the appellant to pursue other remedies as may be permissible under the law after disposal of the matter by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
