Bombay High Court
Shri.Shrikrishna G.Joshi vs The Charity Commissioner Of ... on 26 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:13986
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.847 OF 1992
1 Shrikrishna Gangadhar Joshi
since deceased (deleted)
2 Ravindra Shrikrishna Joshi
residing at Parvati Gangadhar
Bhuvan, 1st Floor, 364-C/D,
N.C. Kelkar Road,
Dadar (West), Bombay - 400 028. ....Appellants
: Versus :
1 The Charity Commissioner
Maharashtra State, Bombay
V.T. Purandare, Esqr.,
(deleted)
2 Joint Charity Commissioner
both having their office at
Dharmada Ayukta Bhavan
Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Worli, Bombay - 400 018.
3 Prabhudas Tribhovandas Sanghvi
residing at 8, "Sarvamangal"
15-College Street, Dadar,
Bombay - 400 028.
4 Shriram Gangadhar Joshi
(deleted)
5 Surendra Shripad Joshi
(deleted)
6 Vikas Shriram Joshi,
all residing at Parvati Gangadhar
Building, 2nd and 3rd Floors,
364-C/D, N.C. Kelkar Road,
Dadar, Bombay - 400 028.
___________________________________________________________________________
Page No.1 of 49
26 March 2025
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2025 22:33:36 :::
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
7 Ganesh Anant Bhole
(deleted)
8 Marutirao Shripad Apte
(Deleted)
9 Vijay Shriram Joshi
R/o 501, Om Shanti Harish
Chandra Patil Road,
Shivaji Park, Dadar (W)
Mumbai - 400 018. ....Respondents
WITH
CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.18697 OF 1992
1 Shrikrishna Gangadhar Joshi
since deceased (deleted)
2 Ravindra Shrikrishna Joshi
residing at Parvati Gangadhar
Bhuvan, 1st Floor, 364-C/D,
N.C. Kelkar Road,
Dadar (West), Bombay - 400 028. ....Appellants
: Versus :
1 The Charity Commissioner
Maharashtra State, Bombay
V.T. Purandare, Esqr.,
(deleted)
2 Joint Charity Commissioner
both having their office at
Dharmada Ayukta Bhavan
Dr. Annie Basant Road,
Worli, Bombay - 400 018.
3 Prabhudas Tribhovandas Sanghvi
residing at 8, "Sarvamangal"
15-College Street, Dadar,
Bombay - 400 028.
4 Shriram Gangadhar Joshi
___________________________________________________________________________
Page No.2 of 49
26 March 2025
::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2025 22:33:36 :::
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
(deleted)
5 Surendra Shripad Joshi
(deleted)
6 Vikas Shriram Joshi,
all residing at Parvati Gangadhar
Building,
2nd and 3rd Floors,
364-C/D, N.C. Kelkar Road,
Dadar, Bombay - 400 028.
7 Ganesh Anant Bhole
(deleted)
8 Marutirao Shripad Apte
(Deleted) ....Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare with Mr. Ashish Ghadge, Ms. Gunjan Tamhane i/b
M/s. Tamhane & Co. for the Appellants.
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nakul Jain i/b Mr. K.D.
Shah for Respondent Nos.3 to 6 in FA 847 of 1992.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 State.
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment Resd. On : 07 March, 2025.
Judgment Pron. On : 26 March, 2025.
J U D G M E N T:
A. THE CHALLENGE
1) Appellants have filed the present Appeal challenging the
judgment and order dated 29 April 1992 passed by the learned Judge of
the City Civil Court at Bombay in Charity Application No.17 of 1991, by
which the learned Judge has dismissed the Charity Application and has
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
confirmed the judgment and order dated 29 April 1991 passed by the
Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. The Joint Charity Commissioner
had allowed the Application No.24 of 1983 filed by the Respondent Nos.
3 to 6 under provisions of Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts
Act, 1950 (MPT Act) and had directed dismissal of both the Appellants
as trustees of Samarth Shiksha Mandal and Charity Trust (PTR No.E-
2278).
B. FACTS
2) Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the Application No. 24
of 1983 are that Samarth Shiksha Mandal and Charity Trust (the Trust)
was created vide Trust Deed dated 22 January 1962 for promotion of
education. The Settler of the Trust was Shri V.B. Phadnis, who was an
educationist and was interested in cause of education. He had
immovable property at Bassein and by Trust Deed, he has created the
Trust setting aside the said property as the property of the Trust. He
appointed Shri Shriram Gangadhar Joshi, Shri Prabhudas Tribhovandas
Sanghvi, Shri Shrikrishna Gangadhar Joshi and one Shri Shripad
Gangadhar Joshi as trustees of the Trust. The objects of the Trust were
exclusively education. In the year 1969, a scheme was framed under
Section 50A(1) of the MPT Act by the Deputy Charity Commissioner,
under which Shri Shrikrishna Gangadhar Joshi was appointed as
Managing Trustee for life. It is the case of Respondents that the said
scheme application was filed by Appellant No.1 alone without
discussing the draft scheme in the meeting of the Trustees. It is alleged
by Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 that Appellant No.1 in his capacity as
Managing Trustee had misinterpreted the provisions of constitution of
the trust to suit his own interests, by looking after and managing all the
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
affairs of the Trust by himself without the consent of the other Trustees.
Appellant No.2 is the son of the Appellant No.1.
3) Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed Application No.24 of 1983
under provisions of Section 41D of the MPT Act seeking removal of the
Appellants as trustees by levelling several allegations against them.
Since charges were framed based on the allegations levelled in the
application, it is not necessary to reproduce the contents of the
application preferred by Respondent Nos.3 to 6 before the Joint Charity
Commissioner. Appellants resisted the Application by filing their
Written Statement denying the allegations.
4) After hearing the parties and after perusing the documents
on record, the Joint Charity Commissioner framed 10 charges against
the Appellants on 10 August 1984. By interim order dated 11 December
1984 the Joint Charity Commissioner suspended Appellant No.1 as
trustee of the Trust. By order dated 4 May 1987, the Joint Charity
Commissioner framed additional Charge Nos.11 to 17 against the
Appellants. This is how total 17 charges came to be framed against the
Appellants.
5) On behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 6, three witnesses were
examined viz. Shri Prabhudas Tribhovandas Sanghvi, Shri Bhagwan
Waman Rangnekar and Shrimati Sangeeta Chavan. No oral evidence
was led on behalf of the Appellants. Both the parties filed voluminous
documentary evidence. After considering the pleadings, documentary
and oral evidence, the Joint Charity Commissioner proceeded to allow
Application No.24 of 1983 holding that Charge Nos. 1, 2, 3(Part), 4, 5, 10,
13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were proved and that Charge Nos.6, 7, 8, 11 and 12
were not proved. The Joint Charity Commissioner accordingly allowed
Application No. 24 of 1983 and directed that both the Appellants be
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
dismissed as trustees of the Trust under provisions of Section 41D of
the MPT Act by judgment and order dated 29 April 1991.
6) Appellants filed Charity Application No.17 of 1991 before
the Bombay City Civil Court, challenging the judgment and order dated
29 April 1991. The City Civil Court recorded the following findings
against each charge:
i) Charge No.1 - Finding of Joint Charity Commissioner
reversed, and it is held that the charge is not proved,
ii) Charge No.2 - Proved,
iii) Charge Nos.3 and 11 - Partly proved to the extent of
operation of Bank Accounts in violation of lawful orders passed
by the Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner,
iv) Charge No.4 - Not proved,
v) Charge No.5 - Not proved,
vi) Charge Nos.6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 - Not pressed,
vii) Charge No.10 - Proved,
viii) Charge No.13 - Proved,
ix) Charge No.14 - Proved,
x) Charge No.15 - Not proved qua Appellant No.2,
xi) Charge Nos.16 and 17 - Proved.
7) The City Civil Court accordingly upheld the order of
removal of Appellants as trustees of the Trust by dismissing Charity
Application No.17 of 1991 by its judgment and order dated 29 April
1992. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 had filed Cross-Objections challenging
those findings of the Joint Charity Commissioner, which had exonerated
the Appellants in respect of some of the charges. The City Civil Court
proceeded to reject Cross Objections filed by Respondent Nos.3 to 6.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
8) The Appellants have filed the present Appeal challenging
the judgment and order dated 29 April 1992 passed in Charity
Application No.17 of 1991.
9) The Appeal came to be admitted by order dated 22 July
1992. After admission of the Appeal, Respondent Nos.3 to 6 have filed
Cross Objection (Stamp) No.18697 of 1992 being partly aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 29 April 1992.
10) During pendency of the Appeal, Appellant No.1-Shri
Shrikrishna Gangadhar Joshi has passed away and his name has been
deleted. Similarly, some of the Respondents have also passed away,
whose names have been deleted.
11) The First Appeal and Cross Objections are called out for
final hearing.
C. SUBMISSIONS
12) Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare, the learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants, would submit that majority of the charges are held to be
proved only against Appellant No.1, who passed away on 10 October
2007. That therefore the principle of actio personalis moritur cum persona
would apply and the charges proved against the Appellant No.1 need
not be gone into. In support, he would rely upon the judgment of this
Court in Namdeo Bhikaji Rajput and another vs. Joint Charity
Commissioner, Amravati, and another1 and in Vinayak Purushottam
Dube (deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Jayashree Padamkar Bhat and
others2. He would accordingly submit that the order of removal passed
Writ Petition No.5724 of 2017, decided on 15 October 2018
2024 (9) SCC 398
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
by the Joint Charity Commissioner and upheld by the City Civil Court
are premised essentially on findings relating to proof of charges against
Appellant No. 1, and now that Appellant No. 1 is no longer alive, the
removal proceedings deserve to be dropped qua Appellant No. 1.
13) So far as Appellant No.2 is concerned, Mr. Sugdare would
submit that except Charge No.14, Appellant No.2 is not involved in any
other charge. About the charge No. 10 of conspiracy, he would submit
that no specific allegations were leveled against Appellant No.2 alleging
conspiracy in commission of alleged misconduct by Appellant No. 1
covered by other charges. That only a charge of generic nature relating
to conspiracy was framed against Appellant No.2. That the City Civil
Court has not held Charge No.10 relating to the issue of conspiracy as
proved. That in any case, there is no element of malfeasance involving
any evil doing or official misconduct or misfeasance involving wrongful
exercise of authority. That even otherwise, it is well settled principle of
law that conspiracy cannot be inferred on mere conjectures, surmises,
suspicion or inference which is not supported by cogent and legally
acceptable evidence. That there must be prima facie evidence that a
person was a part of conspiracy and that there was agreement for
meeting of minds. In support, he would rely upon judgment of the
Madras High Court in Siva @ Jeeva @ Atham @ Mottai Khadar @
Abdullah and another vs. State by Inspector of Police 3.
14) Mr. Sugdare would rely upon judgments of this Court in
Mallikarjuanappa s/o Sidramappa and others vs. Joint Charity
Commissioner and others4, Mukund Waman Thatte vs. Sudhir
Parshuram Chitale and others5 and Ekanth Tukaramji Pise and
another vs. Rama Kawduji Bhende and others 6 on the issue of scope of
2019 (Supreme Mad.) 638
2007 SCC OnLine Bom 8924
2012 (3) Mh.L.J. 322
2020 SCC OnLine Bom 934
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
enquiry under Section 41D of the MPT Act.
15) So far as Charge No.14 is concerned, Mr. Sugdare would
submit that the Joint Charity Commissioner had recorded findings
relating to violation of only the interim order dated 11 December 1984,
whereas the Appellate Court went ahead and recorded findings of
violation of order dated 29 June 1985 as well. That since the
counterclaim is dismissed, the City Civil Court could not have
improved upon the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
That in any case, submission of accounts by Appellant No. 2 would, at
the highest, mean irregularity in absence of allegation of dishonest
intention. That in any case, the accounts did not indicate any
misappropriation, and there is no warrant for removal of Appellant No.
2 as trustee only on account of indication of names of Respondent Nos.7
and 8 - Shri Bhole and Shri Apte as trustees. There is no finding of
intentional breach or disobedience of any order resulting in any grave
prejudice to the trust. He would submit that vague and general charges
are held to be proved against Appellant No.2 based on perverse
findings. That there is no allegation, much less proof, that Appellant
No.2 misappropriated the trust funds or dealt with properties of the
trust. Mere allegation of breach of order passed by the Charity
Commissioner, the Appellant No.2 cannot be dismissed as Trustee. That
such drastic punishment was unwarranted in absence of any allegation
of commission of any intentional covert act on his part.
16) Mr. Sugdare would then invoke the principle of
proportionality in support of his submission that the extreme
punishment of removal from position of the trustee is not
commensurate with the proved misconduct against Appellant No. 2. In
support, he would rely upon judgment of this Court in Santoshkumar
Nandkishor Pande and others Versus. Vinaykumar Satyanarayan
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
Mishra and another7. That therefore the City Civil Court ought to have
considered the gravity of misconduct proved and ought to have held
that the punishment of removal from the post of trustee was
disproportionate.
17) In conclusion, Mr. Sugdare would submit that all the grave
charges are dropped in the enquiry under Section 41D of the MPT Act.
That in any case, once allegations qua Appellant No.1 are to be ignored
on account of his death, not much remains against Appellant No.2 and
in any case, the misconduct alleged and proved against Appellant No.2
is not worth removing him from the position of trustee under
provisions of Section 41D of the MPT Act. He would accordingly pray
for setting aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the
City Civil Court and the Joint Charity Commissioner.
18) Mr. Samdani, the learned senior advocate appearing for
Respondent Nos.3 to 6 would oppose the Appeal. He would submit that
concurrent findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner and
City Civil Court do not warrant interference by this Court. That the
present proceedings are in the nature of Second Appeal since the two
judicial officers have already applied their minds to the charges levelled
against both the Appellants and have recorded concurrent findings in
respect of some of the serious charges. He would dispute the position
that Appellant No.2 is held guilty only in respect of Charge No.14. He
would take me through Charge Nos.2 and 3 which according to Mr.
Samdani are held to be proved concurrently by the Joint Charity
Commissioner and the City Civil Court. That Charge No.2 clearly
involves allegations against Appellant No.2 as well. That the said
charges involved allegation of surrendering possession of tenanted
premises by Appellant No.1 and starting private creche and
2013 (2) All MR 784
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
Montesssori school defeating the objective of the Trust. That Charge
No.3 involved allegation of issuing cheques by both the Appellants
without presenting the same for signatures of Respondent Nos.3 to 6 in
breach of orders passed by the Charity Commissioner. He would
demonstrate the misconduct relating to issuance of cheque by Appellant
No.2 by inviting my attention to order dated 15 March 1984 passed by
the Charity Commissioner prohibiting both the Appellants from
operating the Bank Accounts and signing of cheques by both of them
during the period from 6 March 1984 to 10 December 1984 and 12
December 1984 to 12 July 1986. He would then invite my attention to
Charge No.10 and findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner
and City Civil Court in support of his contention that the said charge
involved consideration of overall scenario and the manner in which
Appellant No.2 conspired with Appellant No.1 in commission of
various misconducts levelled in rest of the charges. That the case clearly
involves abatement of son (Appellant No.2) in the activities committed
by his father (Appellant No.1). That Appellant No.2 has committed
continuous actions of acting hand in gloves with his father (Appellant
No.1). He would submit that even during pendency of proceedings
under Section 41D of MPT Act on 23 June 1983 till the same were
decided on 29 April 1992, violations on the part of both the appellants
continued. That the Appellants were holding the position of trustees
and an element of trust and faith were posed in them which they have
clearly violated thereby attracting the provisions of Section 41D of the
Act. Mr. Samdani would submit that there is no prayer for expunction
of findings against Appellant No.1 and therefore Appellant No.2 cannot
seek to get away from the consequences of his joint actions alongwith
Appellant No.1. Mr. Samdani would accordingly pray for dismissal of
the Appeal.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
D. REASONS AND ANALYSIS
19) Respondent Nos.3 to 6 filed Application No.24/1983 for
removal of both the Appellants as trustees of Samartha Shiksha Mandal
and Charitable Trust under the provisions of Section 41D of the MPT
Act. It appears that there were six trustees in the year 1983 when the
said application was filed. Four trustees filed application for removal of
the other two trustees. As observed above, Appellant No.2, Ravindra, is
the son of Appellant No.1, Shrikrishna. It appears that Appellant No.1
was functioning as the Managing Trustees and had secured such
position for life through the scheme framed under Section 50A of the
MPT Act in the year 1969. It was alleged that the other four trustees
were not being consulted for managing the activities of the Trust, which
had set up educational institutions. It was alleged in the application
filed by Respondent Nos.3 to 6 that the founder trustees, V.B. Phadnis
who had donated his entire property for the trust, was unable to
maintain himself and the Appellant No.1 refused to sanction even
pension to the old man who was living in a state of penury in a slum.
On the basis of pleadings, the Joint Charity Commissioner framed total
17 charges against both the Appellants as under:
Charges.
1) You Respondent No.1 allowed your wife Kalawati Joshi to use the
terrace flat at A. H. Wadia Technical Institute Building, Kalina in
contravention of the sanction dated 23-1-1969 given by the Charity
Commissioner and terms of agreement to lease and you did not report
this matter to the trustees and/or take action against your wife and
that you Respondent No.1 permitted. you wife Kalawati Joshi to part
with the possession of the above referred terrace flat and to make
profits out of the said flat and you have thus by defeating the objects of
the trust committed breach of Trust. And thus misappropriated and
dealt improperly with the Trust property so also you have accepted
position in relation to the Trust which is inconsistent with your
position as a trustee.
2) That you Respondent No.1 without consent and knowledge of the
Applicants and without any resolution of the Trust closed the
Montessory Section known as 'Mazi Aai Ni Shishukunj" which was
located in premises on 1st floor of Parvati Bhuvan, 364 C/D, N.C.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
Kelkar Road, Dadar, Bombay-400 028 which were in possession of the
Trust as a tenant at monthly rent and surrendered possession thereof
to yourself and started private creche and Montessory School thereby
defeating the object of the trust by surrendering tenancy rights and
caused a gain to yourself and thus you have accepted position in
relation to the Trust which is inconsistent with your position as a
trustee.
3) You Respondent No.1 are acting without resolution of majority of
the trustees and you have been issuing cheques under the signatures
of yourself and Respondent No.2 without presenting the same for
signature of the applicants except on two occasions i.e. three cheques
on 18-2-1983 and one cheque in March 1983, and thus you have
committed breach of the Order dated 17-2-1983 passed by the Charity
Commissioner, in Application No.14 of 1983 and in volation of the
provisions in the Scheme, and thus you have wilfully disobeyed the
lawful Order of the Learned Charity Commissioner under the
provisions of the Act.
4) You, Respondent No.1, as a Managing Trustee and having charge of
entire record and funds have not prepared, circulated and placed
before the meeting of the trustees the budget as the audited balance
sheet with statement of income and expenditure for years 1980-81,
1981-82, 1982-83 you have thus failed and neglected your duties as
Managing Trustee as per the Scheme and provisions of the Act and the
Rules thereunder and have committed persistent default in
submission of the accounts and returns.
5) You Respondent No.1 did not call a meeting of the trustees every
three months from 23-10-1981 having called after 23-10-1981 to 23-6-
1983 only three meetings were called i.e. on 4-2-1982, 16-9-1982 and
20-10-1982 thus failed and neglected to discharge duties under the
Scheme. Thus you have continuously neglected your duty as a
Managing trustee and thus committed mal-feasance and mis-feasance
and breach of Trust.
6) That you Respondent No.1 did not maintain a rough minute book to
record the minutes which could be subsequently reduced to writing in
fair Minute Book for confirmation in the meeting, that you did not
read the Minutes at the next meeting for confirmation of the minutes
of any meeting, either rough or fair, signed by any of the applicants
which they have attended, and you have placed yourself in a position
to produce any minutes as minutes of a meeting to suit your designs
and action and thus you Respondent No.1, being Managing Trustee,
have misused your position and forged the minutes to suit your
designs and thus you have continuously neglected your duties and
committed mal-feasance and mis-feasance and breach of Trust.
7) You Respondent No.1 have failed and neglected to give proper
instructions to the Attorney to advertise properly the sale of the Trust
property as a result of which material factors such as F.S.I. area of the
plot, eviction orders of the unauthorised occupants etc. were not
mentioned in the advertisements dated 19-9-1981 in "Indian Express"
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
dated 29-9-81 and advertisement dated 19-12-1981 in "Mumbai Sakal'
dated 19-12-81 with the result no offer was received and ultimately
property was permitted to be sold at much lower price causing loss to
the Trust. Thus you have dealt improperly with the properties of the
Trust.
8) You Respondent No.1 did not represent correct facts as to the
Road comprising of an area about 349 sq.mts. Passing through the said
property to valuer Mr. V.K. Natekar appointed by you so that the F.S.I.
available on account of raod is not taken into consideration by Mr. V.K.
Natekar and thus his valuation of the said plot is less by about
Rs.57,000/- than the valuation made by the Valuer, Shri. N.P.Shah,
appointed by the Applicants. This omission on your part was
calculated and intended to cause loss to the Trust. Thus, you have
dealt improperly with the properties of the Trust.
9) That you Respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with Mr.
A.B. Gupta of Pharma Electro Equipments, Kalina in respect of the
transactions alleged in Small Cause Suit No. 391/464 of 1982, without
the knowledge and consent of the applicants and in violation of
objects of the Trust and without the authority of the Trustees. On
account of your said transactions the Trust is likely to suffer monetary
loss. This transactions was also contrary to the objects of the Trust
and, therefore, you have committed breach of trust.
10) That you Respondent No.2 are acting in conspiracy with
Respondent No.1 who is your father, and you are abetting Respondent
No.1 in all the aforesaid acts and in mis-appropriation and breach of
trust and thus you are also guilty of breach of Trust and mis-
appropriation.
11) That you, Respondent No.1, Shri Shrikrishna G. Joshi and you,
Respondent No.2, Shri. Ravindra S. Joshi, inspite of the Order dated
15-3-1984 passed by Shri. A.D. Kale, the then Charity Commisisoner,
Maharashtra State, Bombay ordering you not to operate the Bank
Accounts of Samartha Shiksha Mandal and Charity Trust till 21-3-1984
in Misc. Application 12 of 1984 in Application No.24 of 1983 under
Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and which Order
was further continued until furhter orders by an Order dated 21-3-
1984 passed by Shri. M.M. Tule, the then Joint Charity Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Bombay, and which order is in force till to-day have
withdrawn a sum of Rs.35,000/- from Savings Bank Account No. 162
of the Trust with the Allahabad Bank, Kalina Branch on 6 th March,
1984 anticipating the sale Order and without the consultation and
behind the back of the Applicants the then Trustees of the Trust
opened a separate account bearing No.13003 in Union Bank of India,
Dadar Branch, on 6-3-1984 in the name of Samartha Shiksha Mandal
and Charity Trust to be operated by and under the signature of you
No.1 and one of you Respondent No.2 and Sarvashri. G.A. Bhole and
M.S. Apte by depositing cash of Rs.300/- and further depositing the
said draft of Rs.35,000/- drawn from Allahabad Bank, Kalina Branch,
Bombay, into the said account No.13003 of Union Bank of India,
Dadar Branch, Bombay on 7-3-1984 an operated the said Saving Bank
Accounts of Union Bank of India,, Dadar branch till 12-7-85 and also
operated Savings Bank Account No.162 of Allahabad Bank, Kalina
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
Branch till 27th March 1984 and thereby willfully disobeyed the lawful
orders dated 15-3-1984 and 21-3-1984 referred to above passed by the
Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay and the Joint
Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay, respectfully under
the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and/or Rules made
thereunder by the State Government and committed mal-feasance or
mis-feasance or breach of Trust in repsect of the Trust and have
misappropriated or dealt improperly with the properties of the Trust
and have accepted a position in relation to the said Trust inconsistent
with the position as trustees and have thereby commmitted breaches
of Section 41-D(1)(b), (c), (d), (e) and thereby made yourself liable to
be removed and/or dismised as trustees of the said Trust.
12) That you Respondent No.1, Shrikrishna G. Joshi and
Respondent No.2, Shri. Ravindra S. Joshi in willful disobeyance of the
Order dated 12th October 1984 passed by Their Lordship M. Madhav
Reddy, the then C.J. and Lentin, J. in Appeal No. 996 of 1984 in Writ
Petition No.2126 of 1984 which Order directed both of you to pay a
sum of Rs.150/- in the Office of the Charity Commissioner but did not
pay the sum of Rs.150/- till this day although the office of Charity
Commissioner has sent you a demand for the payment of the said
demand by its letter No.10787 dated 30-9-1985 and accepted position n
relation to the Trust which is inconsistent with your position as
Trustees and you, Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 thereby
committed breaches of Section 41D(1)(b), (c) of the Bombay Public
Trusts Act, 1950 and thereby made yourself liable to be removed or
dismissed as Trustees of the said Trust.
13) That you, Respondent No.1, Shri Shrikrishna Gangadhar Joshi in
wilful disobeyance of the lawful orders passed by the then Joint
Charity Commissioner, Shri M. M. Tule, dated 11-12-1984 and dated 1-
4-83 passed by the then Charity Commissioner, Shri A. S. Medhekar,
under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and/or
Rules thereunder by the State Government, illegally retained the
stationery of Samartha Shiksha Mandal and Charity Trust and by a
letter dated 16-1-1987 addressed to the Manager, Allahabad Bank,
Kalina Branch, Bombay -400 098 and the Manager, Union Bank of
India, Ranade Road, Dadar Branch, Bombay--400 028 represented
yourself as a Trustee by using the letter-head of the Trust and
deliberately suppressed the Order dated 11-12-1984 passed by the
then Joint Charity Commissioner Shri M. M. Tule and the orders dated
27-12-1984 and 29-6-1985 passed by Shri P. T. Jadhav, then Deputy
Charity Commissioner with Appellate Powers with a view to create
obstacles in the smooth management of the trust as per the Order
dated 11-12-1984 passed by Shri M. M. Tule, the then Joint Charity
Commissioner and thereby committed breach of Section 41-D (1)(b) (c)
and thereby accepted position in relation to the Trust which is
inconsistent with the position as a Trustee thereby made yourself
liable to be removed and/or dismissed as a Trustee.
14) That you, Respondent No.2 in wilful disobeyance of the lawful
order dated 11-12- 1984 passed by the then Joint Charity
Commissioner, Shri M. M. Tule and orders dated 27-12-1984 and 29-6-
85 passed by the then Deputy Charity Commissioner with Appellate
Powers, Maharashtra State, Shri P. T. Jadhva, in the Balance Sheet of
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
Samartha Shiksha Mandal and Charity Trust for the year ending 31st
March 1985, submitted on 25-2-86 to the Office of the Deputy Charity
Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region, alongwith the report of Shri
M. J. Bhide & Co., Chartered Accountant dated 14-2-86 mis-
represented to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay
Region, that Shri G. A. Bhole and M. S. Apte continued as Trustee
alongwith you and suppressing the facts that the applicants are the
trustees of the Trust and that you, Respondent No.1, Shri Shrikrishna
G. Joshi aubmitted the aforesaid document In the Office of the Deputy
Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region, vide an
accompanying letter dated 17-2-86 in the letter-head of the said Trust
illegally retained and signed for the Managing Trustee in utter
disobeyance of the aforesaid order and you, Respondents No.1 and 2
accepted position in relation to the Trust which is inconsistent with
your position as trustees and thereby you, Respondent No.1 and 2
have committed a breach of Section 41-D(1)(b), (c) of the Bombay
Public Trusts Act, 1950 and made yourself liable to be removed and/or
dismissed as the Trustees of the said Trust.
15) That you Respondent No.2, Shri Ravindra S. Joshi, alongwith Shri
G. A. Bhole and Shri M. S. Apte and without any intimation and
knowledge of the Applicants held. The meetings of the Trust on 27-3-
1985 and on 12-6-1985 in utter disobeyance of the order dated 27-12-
1984 passed by Shri P. T. Jadhav, the then Deputy Charity
Commissioner with Appellate Powers, Maharashtra State, Bombay in
Appeal No. 39 of 1984 and the Order of Shri M. M. Tule, the then Joint
Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay with an intention
to give financial benefit to your mother, Mrs. Kalawati S. Joshi and
cause substantial financial loss to the Trust although the dispute in
respect of the said flat and the unauthorised users thereof was
pending vide application No.24/83 and that was one of the grounds
for suspension of your father, Respondent No.1, Shri Shrikrishna G.
Joshi by an Order dated 11-12-1984 passed by Shri M. M. Tule, the then
Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay and in respect of
which charge number (1) is already framed on 10-8-1984, without the
sanction of the Charity Commissioner, entered an expenditure of
1,500/-illegally in obtaining the valuation report in respect of the flat
at the Said Trust building at Kalina and made the payment of the said
amount of Rs. 1,500/- in two instalments:-
(a) By a Cheque of Rs. 1,000/- bearing No. 1965150 dated 2-7-85 drawn
in favour of Shri V. K. Matekar, the Architect and the valuer, on
Savings Bank Account No. 13003 of Samartha Shiksha Mandal and
Charity Trust in Union Bank of India, Dadar Branch, which cheque
was debited to the Trust account on 4-7-1985.
(b) Rs. 500/- by cash to Shri V. K. Natekar had signed two separate
receipts No l for Rs. 1,000/- dated 4 th July 1985 and No.2 for Rs. 500/-
dated 3rd August 1985 and have neglected your duty or committed
mal-feasance or breach of trust in respect of the Trust and mis-
appropriated or dealt improperly with the properties of the Trust of
which you are a trustee and accepted position in relation to the Trust,
which is inconsistent with your position as a trustee and thereby
committed breaches of Section 41-D(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and thereby made yourself liable to be
removed and/or dismissed as a trustee.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
16) That you, Respondent No.1, Shri Shrikrishna G. Joshi in Utter
disobeyance of the Order dated 11-12-1984 passed by Shri M. M. Tule,
the then Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay,
lawfully passed under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act,
1950 or Rules made thereunder by the State Government, failed to
hand over the possession of all the Trust properties, documents and
others which were in possession to the applicants and Respondent
No.2 for the purpose of management and administration of Samarth
Shiksha Mandal and Charity Trust and allowed Respondent No.2 Shri
G. A. Bhole and Shri M.S.Apte to enjoy the custody of the same and
thereby neglected your duty or committed mal-feasance or mis-
feasance of breach of Trust in respect of the said Trust and
misappropriated or dealt improperly with the properties of the trust
of which you were a Trustee and accepted position in relation to the
Trust which was inconsistent with your position as a Trustee and thus
committed breach of Section 41-D (1) (b) (c), (d), (e) of the Bombay
Public Trusts Act, 1950 and thereby made yourself liable to removal
and/or dismissal as a Trustee of the said Trust.
17) That you Respondent No.1, Shri Shrikrishna G. Joshi have utterly
disobeyed the Order dated 1-4-86 passed by Shri A. S. Medhekar, the
then Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay and failed to
bring to the Office of the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State,
Bombay all the documents minutes of the meeting, account books,
balance sheet etc. and accounts of the donations received by the Trust
and correspondence with the donors, agreement with Allahabad Bank
and Mr. Gupta and all other papers concerning the Samartha Shiksha
Mandal and Charity Trust and hence neglected your duty or
committed mal-feasance and mis-feasance or breach of Trust in respect
of trust records and mis-appropriated and dealt improperly with the
properties of the Trust in the nature of records of the Trust of which
you were a trustee and accepted position in relation to the Trust which
is inconsistent with your position as a trustee and thereby committed
breaches of Section 41-D 1(b), (c), (d), (e) of the Bombay Public Trusts
Act and thereby made yourself liable to be removed and/or dismissed
as a trustee of the said trust.
20) Mr. Sugdare has contended that since Appellant No.1 has
already passed away, now there is no question of his continuation as
trustees of the Trust and to that extent, he has fairly not argued the
Appeal for the purpose of raising challenge to the findings recorded
against Appellant No.1. Though it is sought to be contended by Mr.
Samdani that mere death of Appellant No.1 would not exonerate him of
the proved misconduct, in my view it is not necessary to decide
correctness of findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner and
City Civil Court in respect of allegations against Appellant No. 1 after
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
his death. Proceedings under Section 41D are aimed at removal of a
person from the position as a trustee. If the person is no longer alive,
there is no question of his continuation as a trustee of the trust. In that
view of the matter, no purpose would be served in now examining the
correctness of the findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner
and City Civil Court qua charges levelled against Appellant No.1. Mr.
Sugdare is right in invoking the principle of actio personalis moritur cum
persona. In Namdeo Rajput, (supra) A Single Judge of this Court had
an occasion to deal with the issue of continuation of proceedings under
Section 41D against a person who no longer remained a trustee or
member of the trust on account of resignation. This Court held in Para
10 as under:
10. The learned Counsel for respondent 2 Shri D.T. Patil was not in a
position to bring to my notice any provision or precedent which
would justify continuation of proceedings under Section 41D of the
Act against the persons who are no longer the trustees or members of
the Trust. The only consequence of the finding that the trustee is guilty
of misconduct referred to Section 41D of the Act is suspension,
removal or dismissal. The statutory scheme does not contemplate any
disqualification attached to a declaration of misconduct. It is,
therefore, difficult to appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel
for respondent 2 that notwithstanding the resignation of the trustees,
the proceedings under Section 41D of the Act ought to be taken to its
logical end.
21) Mr. Sugdare has also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in Vinayak Purshottam Dubey wherein the Apex court has dealt
with distinction between personal rights as opposed to proprietary
rights. The Apex Court held in para-31 and 32 as under :
31. Thus, a contract can be performed vicariously by the legal
representatives of the promisor depending upon the subject-matter of
the contract and the nature of performance that was stipulated thereto.
But a contract involving exercise of individual's skills or expertise of
the promisor or which depends upon his/her personal qualification or
competency, the promisor has to perform the contract by himself and
not by his/her representatives. A contract of service is also personal to
the promisor. This is because when a person contracts with another to
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
work or to perform service, it is on the basis of the individual's skills,
competency or other qualifications of the promisor and in
circumstances such as the death of the promisor he is discharged from
the contract.
32. Correspondingly, duties or obligations which are personal in
nature cannot be transmitted from a person who had to personally
discharge those duties, on his demise, to his legal representatives. Just
as a right is uninheritable and the right personal to him dies with the
owner of the right, similarly, a duty cannot be transferred to the legal
representatives of a deceased if the same is personal in nature.
22) Thus, in Vinayak Purshottam Dubey, the Apex Court held
that duties or obligations, which are personal in nature, cannot be
transmitted from a person who was supposed to personally discharge
those duties on his demise, to his legal representatives. With the death
of the owner of a right, the duty also cannot be transferred to the legal
representative of the deceased if the same is personal in nature.
23) I am in agreement with the submission of Mr. Sugdare that
the impugned order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 29
April 1991 resulted in removal of Appellant No.1 as trustee of the Trust.
Apart from his removal, the Joint Charity Commissioner did not issue
any further direction of recovery of any amount or imposing any
penalty, etc. on him. The right to continue as a trustee of the trust was
purely a personal right of Appellant No.1. With his death, the said right
has come to an end. In that view of the matter, it is not really necessary
now to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the Joint
Charity Commissioner and City Civil Court qua Appellant No.1.
24) However, the acts of Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 2
are not independent. In some of the acts, there is joint involvement by
the duo. Therefore, merely because this Court has found it unnecessary
to probe deeper into the acts of Appellant No. 1 because of his death, it
would not mean that Appellant No. 2 would automatically get absolved
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
of his conduct of acting in conspiracy of Appellant No. 1. Appellant No.
2 will have to stand on his own legs by quelling the allegations of
conspiracy.
25) Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to first
quickly examine the exact charges that are ultimately held to be proved
qua Appellant Nos.1 and 2. As observed above, some of the charges
were not pressed, some were held to be not proved by the Joint Charity
Commissioner, and some are held to be not proved by the City Civil
Court. The following table would present a clear picture of the ultimate
charges that survive as a result of findings recorded by the Joint Charity
Commissioner and City Civil Court:
Charge No. Joint Charity Commissioner City Civil Court
1 Proved Not proved
2 Proved Proved
3 Partly proved Partly proved
4 Proved Not proved
5 Proved Not proved
6 Not proved Not pressed
7. Not proved Not pressed
8. Not proved Not pressed
10 Proved Proved
11 Not proved Not proved but held guilty
of operating bank account
in violation of order of
Joint Charity
Commissioner.
12 Not proved Not pressed
13 Proved Proved
14 Proved Proved
15 Proved Not proved
16 Proved Proved
17 Proved Proved
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
26) Thus, in the ultimate analysis, only seven charges out of the
seventeen are concurrently held to be proved by the Joint Charity
Commissioner and City Civil Court viz. Charge Nos. 2 and 3 (Part), 10,
13, 14, 16 and 17. Out of the above seven charges, the role of Appellant
No.2 is not involved in some of the charges. Appellant No.2 is not
concerned with Charge No. 2, Charge No.13, Charge No.16 and Charge
No.17. Thus, so far as Appellant No.2 is concerned, what needs to be
examined is the concurrent findings recorded by the Joint Charity
Commissioner and City Civil Court qua proof of Charge No.3 and 11
(part), Charge No.10 and Charge No.14.
Charge 3 and 11(part)
27) Both Charge Nos. 3 and 11 essentially alleged breach of
Orders passed by the Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity
Commissioner. Therefore, both the charges are discussed together by
the Joint Charity Commissioner and City Civil Court. In Charge No. 3,
it was alleged that Appellant No. 1 used to issue cheques under his own
signature and that of Appellant No. 2, without resolution of majority
and without submitting the same for signatures of other trustees and
thereby committed breach of order dated 17 February 1983 passed by
the Charity Commissioner. In Charge No. 11, it was alleged that despite
being restrained by Order dated 15 March 1984 and 21 March 1984
passed by the Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner,
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 withdrew amount of Rs. 35000 from savings
bank account behind the back of the other trustees, opened a new bank
account of the Trust to be operated by Appellant No.2 together with
Shri. Bhole and Shri Apte and that they continued operating the said
Bank Account, thereby committing acts of malfeasance and misfeasance
and breach of trust.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
28) Thus, charges pertain to the violation of various orders in
relation to operation of bank accounts of the Trust by the Appellants.
Since, charges allege breach of orders dated 4 February 1983, 17
February 1983, 10 March 1983, 15 March 1984 and 21 March 1984, it
would be necessary to consider the exact effect of the said five Orders:
(i) Order dated 4 February 1983 :
Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 had filed Application No.14 of 1983
under Section 41E for restraining the Appellants from
acting without resolution adopted by majority of trustees
and from operating bank accounts only by themselves. On
4 February 1983, ad-interim order was passed by the
Charity Commissioner inter alia restraining the Appellants
from operating bank accounts and acting without adopting
resolution by majority of Trustees.
(ii) Order dated 17 February 1983 :
Appellants had moved the Charity Commissioner for
vacating the ad-interim order dated 4 February 1983, but
the ad-interim order was confirmed by interim order dated
17 February 1983 qua the direction for acting without
resolution of majority of Trustees (prayer clause 'a'). The ad-
interim order for operation of bank account (prayer clause
'b') was modified by allowing the Appellant No.1 to operate
the bank account subject to obtaining signature of any of
the four Applicants (Respondent Nos. 3 to 6).
(iii) Order dated 10 March 1983 :
The order dated 17 February 1983 was again modified by
the Charity Commissioner on 10 March 1983 directing that
the Appellant No.1 could operate bank accounts by
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
securing signature of any one of the Respondent Nos.3 to 6
and in the event of their refusing to sign the cheques,
Appellant No.1 was permitted to take signature of
Appellant No.2.
(iv) Order dated 15 March 1984 :
In the present proceedings filed under Section 41D for
removal of Appellant, interim order was passed on 15
March 1984 restraining both the Appellants from operating
bank accounts till 21 March 1984.
(v) Order dated 21 March 1984 :
Interim order dated 15 March 1984 was continued till
further orders on 21 March 1984.
29) The findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner
in respect of Charge Nos.3 and 11 qua violation of the above five orders,
are as under:
Charge No.3 and 11-
Above referred charges are pertaining to disobedience of the Orders
passed by the Learned Charity Commissioner against the
Respondents. It is alleged by the applicant that on 3-2-1983 they filed
Application No.14/83 under Section 41-E against present Respondents
restraining them amongst other thins from acting without Resolution
of majority of trustees (prayer (a) and from operating Bank accounts
only by themselves. Accordingly, on 4-2-83, the Learned Charity
Commissioner passed ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (a) and (b)
vide Ex. 323. That means by that Order Respondents were restrained
from acting without Resolution of the majority of the Trustees and
also restraining from operating Bank accounts only by themselves
without consulting applicants. It is further alleged that on 17-2-1983
Respondents moved the Charity Commissioner for vacating ad-
interim Order granted in terms of prayer (a) and (b) on 4-2-1983. But
the Learned Charity Commissioner confirmed the interim relief in
terms of prayer (a) that means the respondents were restrained from
acting without Resolution of majority of trustees but prayer (b) was
modified allowing Respondent No.1 to operate Bank accounts
provided Respondent No l obtained signature of any of the four
applicants on the cheques furnishing the particulars and purpose of
issuing cheques and in case the applicants refuse to sign the cheques
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
then with the signature of the 6th trustee, viz. Respondent No.2 with
the liberty to Applicants to move the Charity Commissioner after
giving 48 hours notice to Respondent No.1 and 2. That means, by
modification of the original order the Learned Charity Commissioner
allowed Respondent Nol to operate Bank accounts after taking
signatures of the applicants and if they refused then Respondent No.l
was allowed to take the signature of Respondent No.2, who is 6th
trustee. The same Order was again modified by the Learned Charity
Commissioner on 10-3-1983 at the instance of Respondent No.1
directing the bank to accept the cheques signed by Respondent No.1
and one of the other trustees. Whether it is after approaching the
Applicants or not the bank need not concern itself which will be
investigated by the Charity Commissioner. By this second
modification, Respondent No. 1 is allowed to take the signature of
Respondent No.2 on the cheques to be issued by him. Accordingly, on
18-2-1983, Respondent No.1 sent three cheques for the signature of
applicants. Out of them two were signed by the applicant and one was
refused to sign. Thereafter, on 18-3-1983 the Respondent No.1 sent a
Letter Ex. 326 to the Charity Commissioner stating that applicant, Shri
Shriram Joshi has refused to sign the bunch of cheques, copy of the
letter was addressed to applicant, Shri Shriram Joshi which was
received by him on 23-3-1983. It is alleged that alleged bunch of
cheque was sent with the employee Shri D. W. Patil. It is to be noted
that said allegation is vague. No particulars of the cheques, date and
time of sending with Mr. Patil are disclosed. Moreover, copy of the
letter from Shri D.W. Patil stating that applicant, Shri Shriram Joshi
refused to sign the bunch of cheques was not enclosed with the copy
of the letter though it was so stated in the letter (Ex. 326). Applicant,
Shri Shriram Joshi replied that letter on the same day i.e. 22-3-1983
(Ex. 327) stating that contents of the said letter were false. Shri Patil
had not come with any bunch of cheques and copy of letter alleged to
have been written by Shri Patil regarding refusal on the part of the
applicant, Shri Shriram Joshi to sign the bunch of cheques. Hence it is
alleged by the applicants that Respondents disobeyed orders of the
Learned Charity Commissioner. It is further their case that though
prayer (a) restraining the Respondents without resolution of majority
of the trustees, they took decision after 4-2-1983 requesting
Respondent No.1 (Ex. 353) to call for the meeting of the trustees but he
did not convey the meeting. On 25-10-1983 present applicants again
sent another letter (Ex. 362) requesting Respondent No.1 to call for the
meeting of the trustees but he did not convey the meeting. Thus,
Respondent No.1 did not call a single meeting and acted without
resolution of majority of trustees and thereby willfully disobeyed the
Orders passed by the Charity Commissioner, dated 4-2-1983. It is
further argued on behalf of the applicants that on 18-2-83 to 27-3-1984
Respondents issued as many as (203 cheques from Account No.162 of
Allahabad Bank, Kalina Branch and withdraw about Rs. 80,000/- from
that account. On 6-3-1984, Respondent No.1 withdraw the amount of
Rs. 35,000/- by Demand Draft from Account No. 162, Allahabad Bank,
Kalina Branch without knowledge of the Applicants and in violation
of the orders, opened a new account in Union Bank of India, Dadar
Branch bearing No. 13003. From 6-3-1984 to 10-12-1984 Respondent
No.1 withdrow the amount of s. 95,000/- from Account No. 13003 of
Union Bank of India, Dadar Branch. From 9-4-1985 to 23-6-1985
Respondent No.2 operated Bank Account No. 13003 and withdrew the
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
amount of Rs. 25,000/- with one Mr. M.S. Apte. It is further argued
that there is no denial of the aforesaid facts by the aforesaid
Respondents, as they had not led any evidence in rebuttal.
On behalf of Respondents, it is argued that first Order was passed in
Application No.14/84 which was under Section 41E restraining the
Opponents from acting without resolution of the majority of trustees
from operating Bank account only by themselves. However, second
prayer regarding operating of Bank account was modified on 17-2-
1983 and Respondent No.1 was allowed to operate Bank accounts
provided that he gets signatures of the any of the applicants by
forwarding the check requiring particulars and purpose along with
letter. It Is further cleared that in case applicants refused to sign, then
with the signature of 6th Trustee 1.e. Respondent No.2 and it will be
open for the applicants to move the Charity Commissioner after
giving 48 hour's notice to Respondent No.1 and 2. Hence, according to
him by that modification in the Order, liberty was given to him to
taken the signature of Respondent No. 2 if applicants refused to sign
cheques. He further argued that same order was again modified on 10-
3-1983 and Respondent No.1 is allowed to issue cheques in a capacity
of Managing Trustee along with one of the trustees Bank was also
directed to accept any cheques presented to it by the Managing Trustee
I.e. Respondent No.1 and one of the other trustees. Whether it is after
approaching the Applicants or not the Bank need not concern itself
which will be investigated by the Charity Commissioner. That means,
according to Respondents by the Order dated 10-3-1983 he was
allowed to operate Bank accounts with his own signature and
signature of any other trustee. That means, he was allowed to take
signature of Respondent NO 2 who is one of the 6th Trustee. He
argued that applicants refused-to sign the cheques, he had
approached the Charity Commissioner that applicants were not
signing the cheques sent to them. Hence the Learned Charity
Commissioner after hearing the Respondents modified the previous
order on 10-3- 1983.
It was the duty of the applicants to approach the Charity
Commissioner and raise objection, if any after giving 48 hours notice
to Respondents. The applicants however, did not approach the Charity
Commissioner as they had no objection to the cheque being issued by
the Respondents and passed by the Bank in terms of Order dated 10-3-
83. He further argued that on 25-8-1983 the applicants filed
application under Section 41-E(4) to the Charity Commissioner to take
action against Respondents regarding contempt of the Court. On 12-9-
1983 the Respondents filed their reply to the said application for
contempt informing the applicants that on account of their refusal to
sign the cheques, the Respondents are drawing only routine cheques
such as for salaries and other routine expenses, which have been
approved during the past twenty years. After receiving the
Respondent's reply as above, no action was initiated under Section 41E
(4) By the Learned Charity Commissioner and application was
allowed to lapse. Hence according to him as per Order dated 10-3-1983
Respondents are allowed to operate Bank account. I held that there is
much substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the
Respondents. It is the grievance of the applicants that Respondents
withdrew huge amounts from the Bank account of the Trust since 18-
2-1983 till 23-6-1985, but according to him as the Order regarding
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
operating the Bank account was modified from time to time and no
action is taken by the Charity Commissioner under Section # 41E(4) it
cannot be said that Respondents disobeyed the orders of the Charity
Commissioner regarding operating the bank accounts. Respondents
withdrew the amount of Rs. 35,000/- by Demand Draft from Account
No.162 Allahabad Bank, Kalina Branch but it was withdrawn as per
modified Order dated 17-2-1983. According to him by Order dated 10-
3-1983 Respondents are allowed to operate bank account by the
Charity Commissioner. Hence according to him the charge regarding
violation of the Order of the Charity Commissioner in respect of
operating the Bank account, it is not proved.
However, by the Order dated 4-2-1983 passed in Application No.
14/83 under Section 41-E Respondents were restrained from acting
without resolution of the majority of the trustees and that Order was
not modified at any time that means that Order remained intact.
Inspite of that Order and requests made by the applicants on 10-2-1983
and 25-10-1983 to call the meeting of the Trustees, Respondent No.1
failed and neglected to convey the meeting of the trustees and thereby
violated the Order dated 4-2-1983 restraining him from acting without
resolution of the majority of trustees.
Charge No.11 is against Respondent No.2 regarding the operation of
Bank account. There is no charge against Respondent No.2 that he
violated the orders of Charity Commissioner, dated 4-2-1983. Hence,
according to me Charge No. ll is not proved. Charge No.3 is partly
proved against Respondent No.1 only.
(emphasis and underling added)
30) In so far as the charge of acting without resolution of
majority is concerned, the Joint Charity Commissioner held that
Respondent Nos.3 to 6 had requested the Appellant No.1 to convene
meeting of the trustees and that Appellant No.1 did not convene a
single meeting and got resolution passed without majority of trustees,
thereby committing willful disobedience of the order passed by the
Charity Commissioner on 4 February 1983. To this extent Charge Nos. 3
and 11 are held to be proved by the Joint Charity Commissioner against
Appellant no.1. In the ultimate analysis, the Joint Charity Commissioner
held that Charge No.3 was partly proved against Appellant No.1 and
that charge No.11 was not proved against Appellant No.2.
31) The City Civil Court has apparently improved upon findings
of the Joint Charity Commissioner qua Charge Nos. 3 and 11. In
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
addition to proof of Charge No. 3 against Appellant No. 1 (failure to
take decisions by majority), the City Civil Court has also held both the
Appellants guilty of committing breach of Orders passed by the Charity
Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner. The findings recorded
by the City Civil Court qua Charge Nos. 3 and 11 is as under:
22. Charge Nos 3 and 11: The learned Jt. Charity Commissioner has
dealt with the said charges jointly. Both the charges mainly pertain to
operation of bank account by the applicants. Both the charges relate to
violation or breach of the orders mentioned therein by the applicants
in respect of operation of the bank account. However, charge No.3 is in
two parts. The first part relates to acting without resolution of
majority of the trustees in breach of the order dt. 4-2-83 and continued
by order dt. 17-2-83, and the second part relates to operation of bank
accounts in breach of specific orders.
23. By the said orders, the Applicants were restrained from acting
without resolution of majority of the trustees. The said order dt. 4-2-83
is Ex. 323 (colly.) in the proceedings of the learned. Jt. Charity
Commissioner. On an application dt. 3-2-83 under. 41-E of the said
Act, the said order came to be passed, by which ad-interim injunction
in terms of prayers (a) and (b) was granted. Prayer (a), as aforesaid,
injuncted the respondents therein (applicants herein) from acting
without resolution of majority of the trustees and, prayer (b) related to
the injunction restraining them from operating the bank account by
themselves only. By a subsequent order dt. 17-2-83 the said ad-interim
order stood modified. Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (b) was
modified but no change was made in respect of prayer (a). However,
prayer (b) was modified by allowing the Managing Trustee to operate
the bank account with the signature of any of the applicants 1 to 4
therein forwarding the cheque required for a particular purpose along
with a letter showing details of requirements of the trust. It was
further provided that in case of refusal by the applicants therein to
sign the said cheques, the Managing Trustee was entitled to take
signature of the sixth trustee (who happened to be his son applicant
No.2 herein). The respondents herein were given liberty to approach
the Charity Commissioner for objecting to operation of bank account
with the signature of applicant No.2 herein. It is the breach of this
order which is made basis for the said charge.
24. The learned Jt. Charity Commissioner has held that charge No.3 is
partly proved against Applicant No.1 herein but charge No.11 is not
proved. As far as charge No.3, is concerned, the learned Jt. Charity
Commissioner appears to have been impressed with the contention of
the present respondents that inspite of letters by them to applicant
No.1, he did not convene a meeting of the Board of Trustees to take
decisions on the items off the agenda. Perusal of the reasons given by
the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner show that he has held the said
charge No.3 as partly proved against applicant No.1 herein only
because he failed to convene the meeting of the trustees inspite of the
requests by the present respondents. This, in his view, was breach of
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
order dt. 4-2-83 and, hence, was valid ground for removal of applicant
No.1 as a trustee under S. 41-D(1) (b) of the said Act.
25. Coming to the first part of the said charge No.3 relating to breach
of order dt. 4-2-83, the material on record clearly shows that the said
order continued till the disposal of the main application. It was never
set aside or modified. Inspite of the same, the proceedings show that
applicant No.1 took decisions without passing resolutions by majority
of the trustees in validly held meeting of the trustees. Mr. Purandare
sought to contend that the said resolution must pertain, as far as
charge No. 3 is concerned, to operation of bank account or
withdrawing money or signing cheques. It does not envisage any other
decision taken by applicants. The said contention deserves to be
rejected, as the said charge does not mention that the said resolution
must be in relation to bank account only. As observed by me
hereinabove, charge No. 3 is in two parts and the first part relating to
taking decision by majority of trustees is a separate and distinct
charge. Further contention of Mr. Purandare that charge No. 3 does
not provide for breach of order dt. 4-2-83 specifically, has also no
merit. This is for the simple reason that if looked at it from the angle of
the various orders passed beginning from 4-2-83 it is very clear that
the same pertains to breach of order dt. 4-2-83. The material on record
clearly shows that all the parties appearing before the learned Jt.
Charity Commissioner also understood the said charge as relating to
breach of order dt. 4-2-83. Evidence is led in that context and
submissions were also made considering the same as relating to
breach of order dt. 4-2-83. It cannot now be gainsaid by the Applicants
that the said charge does not relate to breach of order dt. 4-2-83. The
said charge is properly held to be proved by the learned Jt. Charity
Commissioner.
26. The learned Jt. Charity Commissioner has, however, held that there
was no breach of any lawful order by the Applicants while operating
the bank account. This view appears to have been taken because of
orders dt. 17-2-83 and 10-3-83. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly
consider the application of the said orders. As aofresaid, order dt. 4-2-
83 injuncted the respondents therein from operating the bank account
by themselves only. On being moved by the respondents therein on 17-
2-83 the said order came to be modified and the Managing Trustee
was permitted to operate the account with the signature of one of the
applicants. therein and, on their refusal, with that of respondent No.2
therein. The said order was once again clarified (and not modified as
has been observed by the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner) by order
dt. 10-3-83 by stating that the bank may accept any cheque presented
to it by the Managing Trustee with his signature and that of one of the
other trustees and that the bank should not concern itself whether the
said cheque is presented after approaching the applicants therein or
not. Though the word "modification" is used in the said order also, in
my view, it is a mere clarification and not modification of the earlier
order. This is the crux of the matter, as if it is considered as
clarification, earlier order dt. 17-2-83 stands as it is. By the said order
dt. 17-2-83 it has been specifically provided that the Managing Trustee
shall forward the cheque required for a particular purpose along with
a letter showing details of requirements for the purpose of the trust.
This means that the Managing Trustee will be entitled to obtain the
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
signature of the sixth trustee only if the refusal by the applicants
therein to sign the cheque is after the aforesaid condition of providing
them with details of the requirements in fulfilled. The applicants
herein are, therefore, bound and liable to prove that along with the
cheques, which the respondents herein allegedly refused to sign, latter
containing details and particulars of requirements was also sent. As
can be seen from the observations of the Jt. Charity Commissioner
at page 42 of his judgment, the applicants herein failed to prove
delivery of any such cheques with such letter. It is, therefore,
difficult to believe the version of the applicants herein that the said
mandatory part of the said order dt. 17-2-83 was complied with. The
presentation of the cheques with the signature of applicant No.2
herein on the grounds that that the respondents herein refused to
sign, will not be valid and will be in breach of the order dt. 17-2-83.
I had the benefit of the very meticulously and succinctly prepared
statement of operation of the bank account together with the details
like number of the cheque, date and the amount withdrawn for the
relevant period, provided by Mrs. Nanavati for the respondents.
27. Before dealing with the same, I must also refer to three other
orders passed in this connection. By an order dt. 15-3-84, the Charity
Commissioner passed, a without prejudice order, that the applicants
herein shall not operate the bank account till 21-3-84. The learned Jt.
Charity Commissioner on 21-3-84 extended operation of the said order
passed on 15-3-84 till further orders. The said order is still in
operation. On 11-12-84 by an interim order on the said application, the
learned Jt. Charity Commissioner suspended Applicant No.1 herein as
trustee until further orders. Certain other directions were also given.
The statement of account beyond doubt shows that the applicants
withdrew and operated the bank account No. 162 with Allahabad
Bank between the period 18-3-83 and 27-3-84, account No. 13003 with
Union Bank of India between the period 6-3-84 to 10-12-84 the same
account between 12-12-84 and 12-7-85 was operated by applicant No.2
herein and respondent No. 8 herein.
28. It can be seen from the said statement of account, which is
supported by certified copies of the cheques and statement of account
from different banks that nearly Rs. 56,236/- has been withdrawn by
bearer cheques by the applicants herein out of Rs. 2,30,000/-between
the period 18-3-83 and 27-3-84. There is material on record to show
that the said accounts were operated from 18-3-83 onwards, i.e. after
order dt. 17-2-83, and hence there is no reason to believe that the
cheques were presented in accordance with the said order to the
respondents herein and that they refused to sign inspite. of the fact
that the said cheques were accompanied by letter containing
particulars of requirements as mentioned in the said order. The same
was, therefore, clearly in breach of the order dt. 17-2-83. It is needless
to mention that any operation of the account by applicants 1 and 2
herein, after the order dt. 15-3-84, which imposes a blanket ban on the
said applicants of operation of the bank account, will be clear breach
of the order. The evidence and material on record clearly indicate
that both the applicants did commit breach of the said order dt, 17-
2-83 and 15-3-84.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
29. Mr. Purandare for the applicants sought to contend that the charge
does not relate to breach of any order other than order dt. 17-2-83. It is
true that there is no specific reference to breach of orders dt. 15-3-84
and 21-3-84 in charge No. 3. However, the said charge is considered by
the Jt. Charity Commissioner along with charge No.11 which
specifically refers to the said two orders also. The observations of the
Jt. Charity Commissioner, therefore, will have to be considered in
context with charge No. 11 also. There is, therefore, no substance in the
said contention of Mr. Purandare,
30. Mrs. Nanavati rightly pointed out that not only there is breach by
applicant No.1 but also by applicant No.2 in operation of the bank
accounts in as much as he has operated the bank account with
respondent No.8. Applicant No.2 even represented that the said Apte
and Bhole, whose appointment as trustees was stayed, were
continuing as trustees. As observed by me hereinabove, the material
on record clearly shows that even respondent No.8 was guilty of
breach of the said order relating to operation of bank account,
knowing full well the existence of the said order. The learned Jt.
Charity Commissioner was clearly in error in holding that the said
charge is not proved simply because some contempt proceedings
with regard to the breach thereof are still pending. He appears to
have lost sight of the fact that breach remains a breach and mere
pendency of any proceedings is of no consequence. He ought to have
held the said charge, relating to operation of bank account, was
proved. The said finding of the Charity Commissioner deserves to be
set aside. I hold the said charge relating to operation of bank
accounts in violation of lawful orders passed by the respective
Charity Commissioner and Jt. Charity Commissioner as proved.
(emphasis added)
32) Thus Appellant No. 2 is held guilty of charge relating to
operation of accounts of the Trust in breach of orders passed by the
Charity Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner. I find the said
finding to be well supported by evidence on record. As a matter of fact,
there is no dispute to the position that bank accounts were operated by
both the Appellants by making withdrawals therefrom. Appellant No. 2
went on signing the cheques without ensuring that the other 4 trustees
were first given an opportunity of signing the same as per the Order
dated 10 March 1983. I do not find any element of perversity in the
findings recorded by the City Civil Court.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
Charge No.10
33) In Charge no.10, it was alleged that Appellant No.2 acted in
conspiracy with Appellant No.1 and abetted Appellant No.1 in all other
charges as well as in misappropriation and breach of trust. The Joint
Charity Commissioner recorded following findings qua Charge No.10:
Charge No. 10 is general charge against Respondent No.2 alleging that
Respondent No.2 in collusion with Respondent No.1 who is his father
committed all the acts and supported to the mis-deeds acted by
Respondent No.1 While deciding either charges, I have already
observed Respondent No.2 also disobeyed the Orders of the Charity
Commissioner when both the Respondents were directed to take any
decision by majority and in consultation with the applicants but
Respondent No.2 disobeyed that Order of the Charity Commissioner
and acted in collusion with Respondent No.1. Hence according to me.
Respondent No.2 is guilty for the offence that he in collusion with
Respondent No l had some acts which are not in the interest of the
Trust. Hence according to me, this charge is also proved.
34) The City Civil Court has upheld the findings recorded by
the Joint Charity Commissioner qua Charge No.10 and has held as
under:
Charge No. 10:
39. This charge concerns Applicant No.2 only. He is charged with
acting in conspiracy with applicant No.1 and abetting him in all the
acts of misappropriation and breach of trust, mentioned in the
aforesaid charges, and alleging that he is also guilty of breach of trust.
The reasons are given at page 64 of the impugned order and
judgement of the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner. He has observed
that respondent No.2 therein (applicant No.2 herein) is already held
guilty of disobeyance and breach of the orders of the Charity
Commissioner in as much as inspite of the fact that both the
respondents-therein were directed to take decisions by majority in
consultation with the applicants-therein, respondent No.2 disobeyed
the order of the Charity Commissioner and acted in collusion with
respondent No.1 therein. Hence, according to the learned Jt. Charity
Commissioner, respondent No.2 therein is also guilty of colluding
with respondent No.1 -therein in acting against the interest of the
trust. It can be seen from the said observations of the learned Jt.
Charity Commissioner that while holding respondent No.2 therein
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
guilty of the charge, he has considered his complicity in breach of the
orders referred to him in connection with the other charges. The
findings on those charges are based on consideration of the said
allegations so far as they relate to respondent No.2 also.
40. Mr. Purandare, learned counsel for the applicants, contended that
S.41-D(1) does not make conspiracy or abetment a ground for
suspension, removal or dismissal of any trustee. In view thereof, he
submitted that even assuming that applicant No.2 was guilty of the
said charges, that will not be a ground for his removal. In his view,
this is the only charge for which applicant No.2 is removed as a
trustee. I must mention here that it is not correct that this is the only
charge for which applicant No.2 can be held guilty. I have already
discussed herein-above that applicant No.2 is equally guilty of
committing breach of lawful orders dt. 17-2-83 and 15-3-84. Mr.
Purandare further contended that the learned Jt. Charity
Commissioner has not given reasons nor referred to any evidence on
record to hold applicant No.2 guilty of the charge. This again will not
be correct as the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner has considered
this charge at the end of the judgment which shows that his
observations in relation to this charge are based on overall
consideration and reasons given with regard to other charges
relating to applicant No.2. Mr. Purandare then contended that no
breach of duty is alleged in this charge and no conclusion is arrived at
by the Jt. Charity Commissioner that applicant No.2 had been guilty
of moral turpitude. This argument cannot be endured for the reason
that the charge does not relate to breach of duty only and the question
of moral turpitude does not arise at all. In any event, the appraisal of
the evidence and the material on record points to the guilt of this
applicant of moral turpitude also.
41. Mrs. Nanavati learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that though the charge is not properly worded it relates to the acts
and omissions of applicant No.2 in connection with the operation of
bank accounts in breach of the orders passed in that regard. The
said acts will definitely make him guilty of the acts mentioned in. 41-
D(1)(b) (c) and (e) of the said Act. The material on record, as discussed
hereinabove, clearly substantiates the said contention of Mrs.
Nanavati. In my view respondent No.2 has equally to be held guilty
of the charge, if not of conspiracy and abetment, but for the charge
of malfeasance involving evil doing of official misconduct and
misfeasance involving wrongful exercise of the authority. In my
view, therefore, the said charge should be held to be properly
proved.
(emphasis added)
35) Charge No.10 is held to be proved by considering the
complicity of Appellant No.2 with regard to commission of various acts
by Appellant No. 1. The Joint Charity Commissioner had taken up
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
Charge 10 towards the end of his judgment and had recorded findings
on Charge No.10 after considering the overall misconduct of both the
Appellants qua the other charges. After considering the acts alleged
against Appellant No.1, Joint Charity Commissioner arrived at a
conclusion that Appellant No.2 had actively participated in most of the
actions of Appellant No.1 and accordingly Charge No.10 is held to be
proved. True it is that Charge No.10 is not a misconduct on a standalone
basis as the same alleged conspiracy and abetment by Appellant No.2 in
respect of various acts committed by his father-Appellant No.1. If
findings recorded qua Charge Nos. 2, 3, 10, 11 and 14, 16 and 17 are
taken into consideration, it cannot be contended that the Appellant No.1
was acting alone and that Appellant No.2, in his capacity as Trustee, did
not associate himself with various acts of Appellant No.1. The City Civil
Court has observed that the Appellant No. 2 is guilty of deliberate
disobedience of orders passed by Charity Commissioner and that he
acted in collusion with Appellant No. 1 while disobeying those orders.
Despite this, the City Civil Court has apparently diluted the effect of
Charge No. 10 by holding that 'In my view respondent No.2 has equally to
be held guilty of the charge, if not of conspiracy and abetment, but for the
charge of malfeasance involving evil doing of official misconduct and
misfeasance involving wrongful exercise of the authority' . I do not find any
element of perversity in the findings recorded by the City Civil Court.
36) In my view, therefore, the concurrent findings recorded by
the Joint Charity Commissioner and the City Civil Court qua Charge
No.10 do not warrant interference by this Court.
Charge No.14
37) This, in my view, was the main charge faced by Appellant
No.2 as the same involved allegations mainly relating to solitary actions
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
of Appellant No.2. In Charge No. 14, it was alleged that Appellant No.2
violated order dated 11 December 1984 passed by the Joint Charity
Commissioner and orders dated 27 December 1984 and 29 June 1985
passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner by submitting balance
sheet of the Trust for the year ending 31 March 1985 on 25 February
1986 along with report of the Chartered Accountant dated 14 February
1986, in which it was represented that Mr. G.A. Bhole and Mr. M.S. Apte
continued as Trustees by suppressing the fact that Respondent Nos. 3 to
6 were the actual trustees of the Trust. It was further alleged that
Appellant no.1 submitted the said report of Chartered Accountant to
the Deputy Charity Commissioner alongwith accompanying letter
dated 17 February 1986 by signing the same in the capacity as managing
trustee in violation of the aforestated orders.
38) The Joint Charity Commissioner recorded following
findings qua Charge No.14:
Charge 14 -
It is alleged by the applicants that Respondent No.2 submitted
accounts of the trust for the year ended 31-3-85 on 25-2-1986 in the
Office of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region,
Bombay alongwith report of Shri M. J. Bhide & Co. Chartered
Accountant, dated 14-2-86 misrepresented to the Deputy Charity
Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region, Bombay that Shri G. Bhole
and M. S. Apte continued as trustees alongwith him and suppressing
the fact that the applicants are the trustees of the Trust. Secondly,
present Respondent No.1 submitted that aforesaid document in the
Office of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region,
Bombay vide An accompanying letter dated 17-2-1986 on the letter-
head Of the said Trust and he signed on that letter as for The
Managing Trustee. In fact, Respondent No.1 was suspended by the
Order of Learned Joint Charity Commissioner, dated 11-12-1984. In
view of this fact, Respondent No.1 is not expected to submit that letter
Or balance sheet for the year 1985, in this office. Thirdly, it is alleged
that it is the case of the Respondents that in the meeting dated 29-2-
1984 the appointed Mr. M. S. Apte and G. A. Bhole as trustee by
removing present applicants. Accordingly, they filed change Report to
that effect but the same change report was though accepted by the
Learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, the Appeal was preferred
and execution of that Order accepting the change report was stayed
subsequently. Thereafter, Appeal was allowed and the matter was
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
remanded to the Deputy Charity Commissioner for fresh Inquiry
about that change report. Admittedly that change Report is still
pending. Hence it cannot be said that Mr. Bhole and Apte are new
trustees but position remains as it was prior to that change report that
means present Applicant remains as trustees of this Trust. I failed to
understand when Respondent No.1 was suspended by Order dated
11-12-1984, he is not expected to submit any balance sheet of the trust
after 11-12-1984. However, he had signed that letter, which is at Ex.
394, on behalf of Managing Trustee, this is nothing but unlawfully of
Managing Trustee, this is nothing but unlawfully interfering in the
administration of the Trust, when Respondent No.1 was suspended.
Hence, according to me, he accepted position in relation to the Trust,
which is inconsistent with his position as a trustee.
As regards allegations against Respondent No.2 by an Order dated 11-
12-1984 passed by the Learned Joint Charity Commissioner,
Respondent No.1 and 2 were restrained from taking any decision by
themselves along but they are expected to take decision by majority
alongwith applicants. Secondly, in view of the Order dated 11-12-1984,
Respondent No.2 had to act alongwith the applicants only and he is
not expected to act alongwith Mr. Apte and Bhole after passing the
Order dated 11-12-1984, Respondent No.2 is expected to take any
decision alongwith applicants only. He is not expected to submit the
accounts alone without consulting the applicants. Hence, according to
me Respondent No.2 disobeyed the orders of the Joint Charity
Commissioner, dated 11-12-1984. It is argued on behalf of
Respondents that though the Order of the Deputy Charity
Commissioner in Change Report No. 1010/84 was stayed, still it is not
decided, that the Resolution which was passed appointing Mr.
M.S.Apte and Mr. G. A. Bhole is not yet decided. I have already stated
above that when the matter is remanded by setting aside the Order of
the Deputy Charity Commissioner accepting the change report, it goes
to show clearly that the previous decision remained as it is. That
means, the applicants cannot be said as ceased from trusteeship but
they remained as trustees as per previous record till the final decision
of that change report. In view of this position, I am not going to accept
the arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondent. Hence
according to me this charge is proved
39) The findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner
qua Charge No.14 have been upheld by the City Civil Court by
recording following findings:
47. Charge No. 14: This charge relates to applicant No.2. It is alleged
that he willfully disobeyed the lawful orders dt. 11-12-84; 27-12-84 and
29-6-85 passed by the Jt. Charity Commissioner and Dy. Charity
Commissioner with appellate powers, respectively by misrepresenting
to the Dy. Charity Commissioner that respondents 7 and 8 herein
continued as co-trustees. It is also against Applicant No.l alleging that
he submitted accounts in the office of the Dy. Charity Commissioner
with an accompanying letter dt. 17-2-86 signed on the letter-head of
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
the trust on behalf of Managing Trustee thereby disobeying the said
orders and accepting position in relation to the trust which is
inconsistent with his position as a trustee. They are thus charged
under the grounds mentioned in S. 41-D(1)(b) and (c) of the said Act.
48. As aforesaid, by order dt. 11-12-84 applicant No.1 was suspended
as trustee till further orders. He was also separately directed to hand
over possession of the trust properties which were in his possession to
respondents 3 to 6 and applicant No.2. Inspite of the same, it appears
that applicant No.1 submitted accounts under covering letter dt. 17-2-
86 on the letter-head of the trust and signed on behalf of the Managing
Trustee. This is in clear violation of the said order dt. 11-12-84 as he
had no business or authority to act as trustee or on behalf of the
Managing Trustee. He tried to hoodwink the office of the Charity
Commissioner and tried to play safe by signing for Managing Trustee
and neither as Managing Trustee or as trustee. The intention to act on
behalf of the trust although not authorised to do so by the said order
is crystal clear. He cannot escape the conclusion that he wilfully
disobeyed the lawful order dt. 11-12-84.
49. Applicant No.2 was equally guilty as he signed the balance sheet of
the said rust for the year ending 31-3-85 with respondents 7 and 8
though he was aware that the change report regarding their
appointment as new trustees had been, on the date he signed the
balance sheet, set aside. By order dt. 29-6-85 the said order dt. 7-7-84
accepting the change report relating to them came to be set aside and
the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry. This shows that neither
the removal of respondents 3 to 6 nor the appointment of respondents
7 and 8 remains effective or operative. In my view, signing the said
balance sheet with those two persons, who were not the trustees,
amounts to wilful disobedience of the lawful order passed by the
concerned Dy. Charity Commissioner.
50. Mr. Purandare for the applicants argued that the order dt. 27-12-84
was not lawful as it was passed without jurisdiction. The said order
has been passed by Mr. P. T. Jadhav exercising appellate power. The
said power was being exercised by him in pursuance of an order
passed by the Law and Judiciary Department of Government of
Maharashtra authorising him to perform all the duties or functions
performed by the Charity Commissioner under Ss. 50-A, 70, and 70-A
of the said Act. He contended that under S. 70, the Charity
Commissioner had no power to grant stay of any order passed by the
Dy. Charity Commissioner in inquiry under S. 22 of the said Act. The
duties to be performed and the powers to be exercised by the Charity
Commissioner are specifically enumerated in S. 69 of the said Act. This
section is followed by S. 70 which empowers the Charity
Commissioner to hear appeals against the finding or order of the Dy.
Or Asstt. Charity Commissioner. Neither in S. 69 nor in S. 70 is there
any power to stay operation of the order appealed from. The said
powers are given under other provisions. However, we are concerned
with the provisions of S. 70 only as the said P.T. Jadhav was
empowered to perform the functions of the Charity Commissioner
under S. 50-A, 70 and 70-A only. The power to stay operation of any
order by Charity Commissioner is given in "Rule 36 which enumerate
additional duties and powers of the Charity Commissioner in
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
addition to the duties and powers enumerated in S. 69. No power
under S. 69 was delegated to the said P. T. Jadhav by the said order dt.
27-12-84 the said Dy. Charity Commissioner P. T. Jadhav granted stay
of operation of the order dt. 7-7-84 pending disposal of the appeal. The
said stay related to acceptance of change report regarding removal of
respondents 3 to 6 as trustees and appointment of respondents 7 and 3
as new trustees.
51. My attention was drawn by Mrs. U.A. Shah, learned advocate for
respondents 3 to 6, that a Writ petition being No. 2126-84 was filed
against the order of Shri P. T. Jadhav, which writ petition was
admittedly withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same
grounds. She urged that on this ground of rejection of challenge, the
said view of Shri P.T. Jadhav sould stand confirmed.
52. I see no merit in the said contention. The said point was not
considered by the Hon'ble High Court. Perusal of the said Gazette and
the relevant provisions of law clearly shows that the said P.T. Jadhav
was delegated powers only with regard to three sections, including S.
70. He, therefore, cannot exercise powers of Charity Commissioner
under any other sections of the said Act or the rules framed
thereunder. The interim order of stay will, therefore, be without
jurisdiction.
53. However, the said order merged in the final order dt. 29-6-85 by
which the appeal under S. 70 of the said Act was allowed. The findings
recorded on 7-7-84 accepting change report No. 1010-84 were set aside
and the matter was remanded for retrial. The illegality of the said
order dt. 27-12-84, therefore, will be of no consequence, Applicant
No.2 signed the balance sheet with respondents 7 and 8 even after the
said order dt. 29-6-85. This was done knowing full well that the order
on the change report was set aside. This clearly shows that signing of
the balance sheet prepared by the Chartered Accountants along with
respondents 7 and 8 and submission of the same was intentional
breach of the said lawful orders. The contentions of Mr. Purandare in
this regard are not tenable. I cannot agree with him that S. 70 gives
power to the Charity Commissioner or the Dy. Charity Commissioner
exercising his delegated power, only to annul, reverse, modify or co
firm the finding or the order appealed against and that no such power
to remand the matter for retrial is given. Sub-sec. (3) of the said section
is very clear on this point as it gives discretion to the Charity
Commissioner to direct the concerned Dy. Or Asstt. Charity
Commissioner to make further inquiry or to take additional evidence
which he may think necessary. This means that the matter has to be
remanded for doing so. The power to remand is thus implied. In my
view, therefore the charge is properly proved against the applicants.
40) One of the orders, of which willful disobedience is held to
be proved as against Appellant No.2, was passed by the Joint Charity
Commissioner on 11 December 1984. The said order was passed on
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
Application at Exhibit-23 in Application No. 24 of 1983 filed under
Section 41D of the MPT Act. In the application, Respondent Nos.3 to 6
prayed for placing both the Appellants under suspension in addition to
other interim reliefs during the pendency of proceedings under Section
41D of the Act. Under provisions of Section 41D (3), the Charity
Commissioner is empowered to place a trustee under suspension
pending disposal of charges against him/her. Joint Charity
Commissioner accepted the request for suspension of Appellant No.1
but held that the alleged acts of Appellant No.2 were not so serious so
as to warrant his suspension. Accordingly, the Joint Charity
Commissioner proceeded to pass the following order on 11 December
1984.
ORDER
1. Respondent No.1 Shrikrishna Gangadhar Joshi Managing Trustee is
placed under suspension under Section 41-D (3) of the Bombay Public
Trusts Act, 1950 until further orders.
2. Applicants and Respondent No.2 are directed to look after the
interest, management and administration of the Trust in all respect by
following the provisions of the Scheme and by taking suitable
decisions in that respect.
3. Respondent No.1 Shrikrishna Gangadhar Joshi is directed to hand
over the possession of all the Trust properties, documents and others
which are in his possession at present, to the applicant and
Respondent No.2 for the purpose of management and administration.
4. Respondent No.1 Shrikrishna Gangadhar Joshi is at liberty to file a
fresh application against his order of suspension if subsequent
concluding circumstances favour him in that respect.
5. Original application to be expedited.
6. Inform concerned parties accordingly.
Parties to bear their own costs of this application.
41) Thus, by order dated 11 December 1984, Appellant no.1
was placed under suspension under the provisions of Section 41D (3) of
the MPT Act until further orders. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and Appellant
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
No.2 were directed to look after interest management and
administration of the Trust by following provisions of the scheme and
by taking suitable decision in that respect. Thus, all the actions relating
to management and administration of the Trust after 11 December 1984
were directed to be taken jointly by Appellant No.2 and Respondent
Nos. 3 to 6 . However, Appellant no.2 acted in complete disregard of
order dated 11 December 1984 by unilaterally submitting accounts of
the Trust for the year ending 31 March 1985 on 25 February 1986
together with report of the Chartered Accountant indicating therein that
Mr. Bhole and Mr. Apte continued as trustees alongwith him and did
not reflect names of Respondent Nos.3 to 6 as trustees. Towards
implementation of order dated 11 December 1984, Appellant No.2
ought to have indicated names of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the said
report and ought to have avoided indicting names of Mr. Apte and Mr.
Bhole, who were not authorised by order dated 11 December 1984 to
take any decision relating to management of the Trust. The Joint Charity
Commissioner has recorded a finding that Appellant No.2 unilaterally
submitted the accounts with above misrepresentation by keeping
Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the dark. City Civil Court has held that
Appellant No.2 has sent the balance sheet of the Trust for the year
ending 31 March 1985 and failed to consult or obtain signatures of
Respondent Nos.5 to 8. Thus, Appellant No.2 conducted twin
misconducts of (i) finalizing and submitting the accounts unilaterally
without involving Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and (ii) not recognizing
authority of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as trustees and instead recognizing
authority of outsiders as trustees in gross violation of order dated 11
December 1984. In my view therefore allegation of violation of interim
order dated 11 December 1984 has rightly been held to be proved
concurrently by the Joint Charity Commissioner and City Civil Court.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
42) It is also observed by the City Civil Court that recognising
Mr. Apte and Mr. Bhole as trustees was also in violation of order dated
29 June 1985 by which the Change Report for appointment of Mr. Bhole
and Mr. Apte as Trustees was set aside. The City Civil Court has
rejected the contention that order dated 27 December 1984 was not
lawful or that the same was passed without jurisdiction. Thus, persons
whose Change Report was rejected, were represented before the Deputy
Charity Commissioner as functional Trustees in violation of order dated
27 December 1984 and Appellant No. 2 instead ignored authority of
Respondent Nos.3 to 6 in violation of order dated 11 December 1984.
The City Civil Court has held such actions to be intentional breach of
lawful orders committed by Appellant No. 2.
43) It is sought to be suggested by Mr. Sugdare that Joint
Charity Commissioner had held Appellant No.2 guilty of violating only
order dated 11 December 1984 and without allowing Cross Objections
of Respondent Nos.3 to 6 , the City Civil Court has improved upon the
said finding by erroneously holding Appellant No.2 guilty of violating
orders dated 27 December 1984 and 29 June 1985. In my view, this
objection raised on behalf of Appellant No.2 is stated only to be rejected.
Even the Joint Charity Commissioner has held Appellant No.2 guilty of
misrepresentation about Mr. Bhole and Mr. Apte continuing as trustee.
Therefore, just because the date of the order of 27 December 1984 is not
quoted in the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, it cannot be
contended that Appellant No.2 was exonerated in respect of Charge of
violating the said order. In fact, Charge levelled against Appellant No.2
of preparing, signing and submitting balance sheet for the year ending
31 March 1985 contained the twin elements of (i) not recognising
authority of Respondent Nos.3 to 6 as trustees and (ii) recognising
authority of Mr. Bhole and Mr. Apte as continuing trustee. Both the
allegations amount to violation of orders dated 11 December 1984, 27
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
December 1984 and 29 June 1985. Violation in respect of the above two
elements is held to be proved even by Joint Charity Commissioner.
Therefore, it cannot be contended that the Joint Charity Commissioner
did not hold Appellant No.2 guilty of violating orders dated 27
December 1984 and 29 June 1985 as sought to be contended.
44) In my view therefore, the findings recorded by the Joint
Charity Commissioner and City Civil Court with regard to Charge
No.14 do not warrant any interference.
45) It is contended that actions of Appellant No.2 do not
amount to constituting a ground for removal under Section 41D. It is
contended on behalf of Appellant No.2 that even if the charges levelled
against Appellant No.2 are held to be proved, the said charges cannot
entail removal of Appellant no.2 from position of trustee under Section
41D of the MPT Act.
46) Section 41D of the MPT Act deal with suspension, removal
and dismissal of trust and provides thus:
41D. Suspension, removal and dismissal of trustees.
(1) The Charity Commissioner may, either on application of a trustee
or any person interested in the trust, or on receipt of a report under
section 41B or suo motu may suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee
of a public trust, if he,-
(a) Makes persistent default in the submission of accounts report
or return;
(b) Wilfully disobeys any lawful orders issued by the Charity
Commissioner under the provisions of this Act or rules made
thereunder by the State Government;
(c) continuously neglects his duty or commits any malfeasance or
misfeasance, or breach of trust in respect of the trust;
(d) Misappropriates or deals improperly with the properties of the
trust of which he is a trustee; or
(e) accepts any position in relation to the trust which is
inconsistent with his position as a trustee;
(f) if convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
(2) (a) When the Charity Commissioner proposes to take action under
sub-section (1), the Charity Commissioner may issue notice to the
trustee or the person against whom the action is proposed to be taken
only when he finds that there is prima facie material to proceed
against the said person.
(b)The trustee or person to whom a notice under clause (a) is issued,
shall submit his reply thereto within fifteen days from the date of
receipt of notice.
(c) If the person fails to give reply to the notice issued under clause (a)
or the Charity Commissioner finds that the reply is not satisfactory,
the Charity Commissioner shall frame charges against the said person
within fifteen days of the filing of the reply or the default in the filing
of reply, as the case may be, and give the said person an opportunity
of meeting such charges and after considering the evidence adduced
against him and in his favour, may pass order regarding suspension or
removal or dismissal within three months from the date of framing of
charges. If it is not practicable for the Charity Commissioner to issue
notice, frame charges and pass final orders within stipulated time, he
shall record reasons for the same.
(d)The order of suspension, removal or dismissal shall state the
charges framed against the trustee, his explanation, if any, and the
finding on each charge, with reasons therefor.]
(3) Pending disposal of the charges framed against a trustee the
Charity Commissioner may place the trustee under suspension.
(4) Where the Charity Commissioner has made an order suspending,
removing or dismissing any trustee and such trustee is the sole trustee
or where there are more than one trustee and the remaining trustees,
according to the instrument of trust, cannot function or administer the
trust without the vacancy being filled, then in that case the Charity
Commissioner shall appoint a fit person to discharge the duties and
perform the function of the trust, and such person shall hold office
only until a trustee is duly appointed according to the provisions of
the instrument of trust.
[(5) ***]
(6) An appeal shall lie to the Court against the order made under sub-
section (1), as if such decision was a decree of a district court as a
court of original jurisdiction from which an appeal lies, within sixty
days from the date of the order.
(7) The order of the Charity Commissioner shall, subject to any order
of the Court or in appeal, be final.
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
47) In my view, Charge Nos.3 and 14 which are held to be
proved against Appellant No.2, relate to violation of orders passed by
Joint Charity Commissioner and Charity Commissioners and
accordingly actions of Appellant No.2 in that regard would squarely be
covered by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 41D of the MPT Act.
A trustee willfully disobeying lawful order issued by the Charity
Commissioner attracts removal from the position of trustee. Appellants
are found to have repeatedly indulged in violating lawful orders passed
by the Charity Commissioners and therefore it cannot be contended that
the charges held to be proved against Appellant No. 2 do not constitute a
valid ground for his removal under the provisions of Section 41D of the
MPT Act. On conjoint reading of various findings recorded by the Joint
Charity Commissioner and City Civil Court in respect of both the
Appellants would indicate occurrence of persistent acts by the duo,
many of which were in direct defiance of orders passed by the Charity
Commissioner and Joint Charity Commissioner. The case does not
involve the solitary aberration or negligent or unintentional breach of
the orders. The case represents a pattern where both the appellants have
taken deliberate actions to retain absolute control over the Trust by
intentionally violating the orders passed by the Charity Commissioner.
Therefore, the breach committed by them is not bonafide or
unintentional, but the same was clearly willful. In my view therefore, the
charges proved against Appellant No.2 clearly attract ground for his
removal as trustee of the Trust.
48) Additionally, Appellant No.1 was also found guilty in
respect of misappropriation of the Trust property and charge of
conspiracy and abetment is held to be proved against Appellant No.2.
Similar is the case of commission of act of malfeasance and misfeasance
by Appellant No.1, in which Appellant No. 2 has actively participated. It
would be therefore too far-fetched to contend that charges, if taken to be
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
proved, would not constitute a ground for removal of Appellant No.2 as
trustee of the Trust.
49) Mr. Sugdare has invoked the principle of proportionality of
punishment. The argument is obviously without prejudice to the main
submission that none of the Appellants have committed any misconduct
as alleged. He has relied upon judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumar
(supra) where this Court remanded the proceedings for deciding the
aspect of proportionality of punishment after holding that the said
aspect was not dealt with by Joint Charity Commissioner or City Civil
Court. This Court held in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as under:
6. Section 41(D)(1) of Bombay public trust act confers a power upon
the Charity Commissioner to suspend, remove or dismiss any
Trustee/Trustees of the Public Trust if he/they are found guilty of the
act/acts, which is/are mentioned in any of the Clauses (a) to (f)
therein. In order to consider the question as to whether the Trustee or
the Trustees, who is or are found guilty of any of the charges
mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) to sub-section (1) of Section 41D of the
said Act, should be suspended, removed or dismissed, there has to be
an application of mind to the aspect of proportionality of punishment
on the basis of the charges held to be proved. The punishment of
either suspension, removal or dismissal, as the case may be, has to be
proportionate to the gravity of the charge/charges held to be proved.
It is not the every lapse or every act of misconduct, which invites the
punishment of dismissal. The Charity Commissioner is, therefore,
bound to record reasons for imposing a particular punishment. The
substantial question of law is, therefore, answered accordingly.
7. Perusal of the judgment and order impugned in this second appeal
shows that except the discussion in para 15 thereof, reproduced above,
there is neither any consideration of the aspect of proportionality of
punishment proposed to be imposed nor there are reasons recorded to
impose the punishment of dismissal. The judgment and order passed
by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to the extent it imposes the
punishment of dismissal of the appellants as Trustees cannot,
therefore, be sustained and the same will have to be quashed and set
aside.
8. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and order
dated 6-3-2012 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner,
Nagpur, in Application No.42 of 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside
only to the extent of imposing punishment of dismissal of the
appellants from the posts of Trustees, without touching to the other
findings recorded by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. The
matter is remanded back to the learned Joint Charity Commissioner to
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
consider only the aspect of proportionality of punishment on the basis
of the charges held to be proved, after hearing all the parties
concerned, and the other points concluded shall not be re-opened. The
learned Joint Charity Commissioner shall decide the said aspect and
pass appropriate order within a period of six months from the date of
first appearance of the parties before him. The parties to appear before
the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, on 20-11-2012. No
order as to costs.
50) In my view, the argument of proportionality of punishment
would not enure to the benefit of Appellant No.2 in the present case.
The Joint Charity Commissioner and City Civil Court have recorded
findings of misappropriation, gross negligence, and willful breach of
orders against Appellant No.1 in addition to some of the individual acts
of Appellant No.2. He is also held guilty of abetting and aiding
Appellant No.1 in respect of his illegal activities. Appellant No.2 had
made it a policy to disobey the orders passed by the Charity
Commissioner. As held above, his actions covered by Charge No.14 are
not innocent but are deliberate as the same were aimed at not paying
any heed to the lawful orders passed by the Charity Commissioner. The
case does not involve stray incident of disobedience of any order. The
disobedience is deliberate with intent of retaining control of the trust. If
a trustee deliberately defies lawful orders, the least that he/she must
suffer is removal from the position as trustee. Considering the nature of
misconduct proved against the Appellants, in my view, the punishment
of removal does not warrant any interference by invoking the principle
of proportionality.
51) Even otherwise, Section 41D of the MPT Act vests
discretion in the Charity Commissioner to take a decision once charges
are held to be proved against a trustee. Once the discretion is exercised
by the Joint Charity Commissioner recording a satisfaction that
misconduct proved warrants removal of the trustee, it is not open for
this Court to step into the shoes of the Joint Charity Commissioner and
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
substitute the penalty. The penalty otherwise does not appear to be
shockingly disproportionate considering the nature of charges held to
be proved against Appellant No.2.
52) What remains now is to deal with judgments cited by Mr.
Sukhdare. Judgment of this Court in Mallikarjuna is relied upon in
support of his contention that drastic action under Section 41D of the
MPT Act is not warranted unless lapse on the part of the trustee is
proved to be actuated by dishonesty or active connivance with other
trustee who are guilty of misfeasance and malfeasance. This Court held
in paragraph Nos.19 and 20 as under:
19. The legal position, which may be kept at back of the mind, is that
removal of a trustee is a drastic action. The charge of malfeasance
and/or misfeasance is serious one. The proceedings are of quasi civil
and quasi criminal nature. Though the proceedings under section 41D
is not criminal proceeding as such, yet, proof required to sustain the
charges is of high standard. The standard of proof in such proceedings
is somewhat more than normally required in cases governed by
preponderance of probabilities and somewhat less than required in
trials of criminal cases. The degree of proof required in criminal case
is such that would prove criminal charge beyond a reasonable realm of
doubt. The imputation reflecting on integrity of trustees have to be
fortified by proof of high degree which would be somewhere in
between standard of proof required in civil proceedings like a suit and
criminal proceedings like a trial for offence of criminal breach of trust,
or that of cheating. Thus, unless the lapse on part of the trustee is
proved to be actuated by dishonesty or active connivance with other
trustees, who are guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance, the drastic
action under section 41-D of the BPT Act, may not be warranted.
20. The expression "misfeasance" as used in clause (c) of section 41
would imply commission of breach of trust. It is more than mere
negligence of the trustee to perform his duty. "Misfeasance" includes
breach of duty by the trustee which would result into loss to the trust
or would cause unlawful gain to donations from students for giving
admission to first year Engineering course is not contemplated under
the terms of the office of the trusteeship. It requires no mincing of
words to say that ordinarily no student will volunteer to pay in excess
of the prescribed fees for admission to the professional course. It is
only for compelling reasons, that the donations or capitation fees is
paid by the students. They are a needy class. The exploitation is made
by those who can fleece the easy money.
(emphasis added)
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
In my view, Appellant No.2 is held guilty of commission of acts in
connivance with Appellant No.1, who grossly misused his position as
managing trustee for misappropriating the properties of the trust and
repeatedly committed breach of lawful orders passed by the Charity
Commissioner. Charge No.2 of surrendering tenancy in respect of first-
floor premises in building-Parvati Bhavan in favour of Appellant No.1
and commencing a business of Creche there at, has been held to be
proved. Thus, the premises in possession of the Trust as tenant, where
Montessori section of the school was being operated, was taken over by
HUF of Appellant No.1 and its possession was sought to be retained.
Appellant No. 2 is part of the HUF. The charge of misappropriating
Trust property has been held to be proved against Appellant No.1.
Appellant No.2 has conspired with Appellant No.1 in commission of
that act. In my view therefore, the drastic action against Appellant No.2
was clearly warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
53) Judgment in Mukund Waman Thatte (supra) is relied upon
by Mr. Sukhdare in support of his contention that drastic action of
removal, suspension or dismissal from the post of trustee requires a
very high degree of proof. This is not a case of proof of charge No. 14
against Appellant No. 2 on mere surmises or conjectures. Breach of
various orders passed by the Charity Commissioner by him is writ
large. Therefore, there is no issue of sufficiency of evidence or or degree
of proof involved in the present case. In my view therefore, the
judgment in Mukund Waman Thatte does not really assist the case of
the Appellants.
54) Lastly, judgment of Madras High Court in Shiva @ Jiva
(supra) is relied upon in support of the contention that there must be
prima-facie evidence to indicate that a person was party to the
conspiracy and to the agreement for meeting of minds. The judgment is
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
rendered by the Madras High Court while dealing with criminal
prosecution. In the present case, active involvement of the Appellant
No.2 in various actions of Appellant No.1 has been conclusively
established. Therefore, the case does not involve mere conjectures or
surmises as sought to be alleged by the Appellants.
55) The conspectus of the above discussion is that the
concurrent findings recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner and
City Civil Court in respect of Charge Nos. 3,10 and 14 against Appellant
No.2 do not warrant interference. Though not required, even on
appreciating the evidence on record, this Court is unable to trace any
element of perversity in the findings recorded by the Joint Charity
Commissioner and the City Civil Court.
56) Nothing would survive in cross objections, which are
essentially filed to the extent of exoneration of Appellant No. 1 by the
Joint Charity Commissioner and City Civil Court in respect of some of
the charges. Since this Court has expressed disinclination to probe into
the role of Appellant No. 1 on account of his death, the cross objections
will necessarily have to be dismissed.
E. ORDER
57) The Appeal is thus devoid of merits. It is accordingly
dismissed with costs. Cross Objections are also dismissed.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
NEETA SAWANT FA-847-1992-FC
58) After the judgment is pronounced, Mr. Sugdare would pray
for continuation of the interim order dated 22 July 1992 by which this
Court had continued the arrangement of granting permission to
Appellant No.2 to attend meetings of the Trust. The request is opposed
by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order
dated 22 July 1992 shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2025.03.26
20:00:56
+0530
___________________________________________________________________________
26 March 2025
