9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usteeship of the 4th Respondent Trust on 11th February, 1999. Appellants 2 and 3 were inducted as additional Trustees on 15h March, 1999. On 1st July, 1999 Respondents 1 2 were removed from trusteeship. On 28th September, 1999 the Respondents instituted Suit No. 8355/99 before the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that there was forgery of the purported letter dated 11th February, 1999 by which Respondent No. 3 had supposedly resigned. Allegation of mismanagement of the 4th Respondent Trust and its properties are also made. Removal of the Appellants as trustees is prayed for. A prayer is also made for cancellation of a Lease of the Trust properties granted in favour of Appellants 2 3. 3. Under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 a suit can only be filed by the Advocate General or by two or more persons having an interest in the trust after having obtained the leave of the Court. The Appellants opposed grant of leave. Their submissions were not accepted and the Court granted leave on 10th November, 1999. The Revision filed by the Appellants was dismissed on 11th February, 2000. Whilst contesting grant of le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s being grossly mismanaged, he may institute an enquiry into the truth of the allegations against the persons in possession and management of the property or the institution. 18. If it is proved that there has been gross mismanagement of the institution or of any property pertaining thereto or any misapplication or misappropriation of any part of the property, or any breach of trust in respect thereof, the Muzrai Officer may, with the previous sanction of the Government. (1) take the institution under the management of Government; (2) order that the property which has been mismanaged or misappropriated shall be delivered back either to the institution or to the possession of the Government on behalf of the institution; (3) obtain security for the proper performance of the trust or management of the property; (4) frame a scheme for the proper management of the institution or management of its property and the application thereof; and (5) pass such other ancillary or necessary orders as the case may require in accordance with justice and equity. 19. (1) where property belonging to a religious or charitable institution has been wrongfully alienated or transferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the parties interested and the Muzrai Officer or other person or persons holding enquiry shall have all the powers of a Revenue Officer empowered to conduct such formal enquiry. 38. (1) Every order passed under this Act by a Muzrai Officer which is not liable to be set aside by a suit filed under any of the provisions of this Act, shall be subject to appeal to the Muzrai Commissioner: Provided that when the order is passed by an Assistant Commissioner exercising the powers of a Muzrai Officer, it will be a appealable in the first instance to the Deputy Commissioner. (2) An appeal will lie to the Government against every order passed by the Muzrai Commissioner, provided that no such appeal shall lie to the Government from an appellate decision passed by the Muzrai Commissioner except on a point of law or usage having the force of law. (3) The Government may at any stage, withdraw any appeal or proceeding pending before the Muzrai Commissioner and dispose of the same or re-transfer the same for disposal to the Muzrai Commissioner. (4) The Government may transfer to the Muzrai Commissioner for disposal all or any of the appeals that may be pending before them when thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not bar jurisdictions of Civil Courts. Even otherwise, we are unable to accept the submission that Section 18(5) allows the Muzrai Officer to deal with cases where serious allegations of fraud and/or forgery are made. Section 18(5) merely enables the Muzrai Officer to pass ancillary or necessary orders in respect of matters covered by Sub-sections 1 to 4 of the Section. The enquiry has to be in respect of matters laid down in Sub-sections 1 to 4 of Section 18. Further an order under Section 18 can only be passed by the Muzrai Officer with the previous sanction of the Government. This also shows that these provisions are not meant to be a substitute for judicial proceedings. 9. A perusal of the Plaint shows that there are serious allegations of forgery, fraud, diversion of trust properties in favour of Appellants 2 3 and the brothers of the 1st Appellant. Such serious allegations can never be enquired into, in a summary manner by a Muzrai Officer in the type of enquiry contemplated under Section 17 of the Mysore Act. These are matters which can only be gone into by a Court. The trial court was thus right in holding that these are matters which would require issues to be fram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... right in submitting that it is a law on the date of trial of the suit which is to be applied. In support of this submission, Mr. Sanghi relied upon the Judgment In the case of Shiv Bhagwan v. Onkarmal reported in AIR1952Bom365, wherein it has been held that no party has a vested right to a particular proceeding or to a particular forum. It has been held that it is well settled that all procedural laws are retrospective unless the Legislature expressly states to the contrary. It has been held that the procedural laws in force must be applied at the date when the suit or proceeding comes on for trial or disposal. It has been held that a Court is bound to take notice of the change in the law and is bound to administer the law as it was when the suit came up for hearing. It has been held that if a Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, when it comes on for disposal, it then cannot refuse to assume jurisdiction by reason of the fact that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it at the date when it was instituted. We are in complete agreement with these observations. As stated above, the Mysore Act now stands repelled. It could not be denied that now the Court has jurisdiction to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
