Page 1

1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2819 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.4148 of 2011)

CHARU KISHOR MEHTA                       ……APPELLANT

VERSUS

JOINT CHARITY COMMISSIONER,  GREATER BOMBAY REGION & ORS.           ……RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.  

2. This  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  appellant  

against  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated  

01.12.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,  

in Letters Patent Appeal No.268 of 2010 (for short

Page 2

2

“LPA”) in Writ Petition No. 9501 of 2009, whereby the  

High Court dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant  

and upheld the judgment and order dated 02.03.2010  

passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court.  

3. For the purpose of considering the rival legal  

contentions urged on behalf of the parties in this  

appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court  

is required to interfere with the impugned judgment  

and order of the High Court, the necessary facts are  

briefly stated hereunder:

   The appellant herein is the permanent trustee of  

the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (for short  

“the Trust”) which is a public registered Trust in  

accordance with the terms of the registered Trust  

Deed  and  is  governed  under  the  provisions  of  the  

Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”).  

The respondent nos.2 to 9 are the trustees of the  

aforesaid Trust along with the now deceased Vijay  

Mehta,  who  was  the  Managing  Trustee  of  the  Trust  

during the relevant period of time. The case of the  

appellant  is  that  respondent  Nos.2  to  9  have  

allegedly  continuously  neglected  their  duties  and

Page 3

3

have committed malfeasance by acting in breach of  

trust with respect to the Trust properties. They have  

also misappropriated and improperly dealt with the  

properties of the Trust from the year 2001 to 2006.  

It has been further alleged by the appellant that  

they have also squandered the Trust money to the tune  

of crores of rupees and have committed serious acts  

of malfeasance.

 4. The appellant on coming to know of this fact in  

the  year  2006,  filed  an  application,  being  

Application No. 17 of 2006 under Section 41D of the  

Act before the Joint Charity Commissioner (for short  

“JCC”),  making  various  allegations  against  the  

aforesaid  respondent  Nos.2  to  9  including  the  

deceased Vijay Mehta and alleged that they are liable  

for dismissal from their Trusteeship of the Trust for  

their  acts  of  nonfeasance  and  malfeasance, inter  

alia,  contending  that  they  have  abdicated  their  

functions and duties as provided under the provision  

of Section 36A of the Act, after their acceptance as  

trustees in the said Trust as provided under Sections

Page 4

4

46 and 47 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, which is  

applicable to the fact situation of the present case.

   On the basis of the said application, the JCC,  

framed 8 grave and serious charges jointly against  

the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 (original respondent nos.  

1 to 8) and the deceased Vijay Mehta (the original  

respondent no.9).

  5. The JCC vide its order dated 25.9.2009, after  

affording opportunity to the parties in the present  

case, recorded its findings on the charges and held  

that  the  charges  against  respondent  Nos.  2  to  9  

except charge No. 4 which was against the deceased  

Vijay  Mehta  have  been  proved.  The  JCC  however,  

dismissed the application against the respondent Nos.  

2 to 9 and exonerated them by holding that they are  

only negligent in putting blind faith in delegating  

their powers and duties to be performed as trustees  

of the Trust in favour of the deceased Vijay Mehta,  

the Managing Trustee of the Trust. Therefore, the  

application against them was dismissed by him. The  

appellant herein being aggrieved by the said findings

Page 5

5

and reasons recorded by the JCC filed writ petition  

No. 9501 of 2009 before the learned single Judge of  

the High Court, whereby the High Court vide its order  

dated 2.3.2010 dismissed the writ petition.

6. Thereafter, the appellant filed LPA No.268 of  

2010 before the High Court, which was also dismissed  

by the Division Bench on the basis of the findings  

recorded by the learned single Judge and held that  

the charges framed against the respondent Nos. 2 to 9  

by the JCC were established. However, as there was no  

evidence against respondent Nos. 2 to 9 to hold them  

responsible for the transactions from the year 2001  

to 2006, except on charge No.4, it has held that  

there is culpability of the deceased Vijay Mehta and  

further, the JCC has held that the charges against  

respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in delegating their powers and  

functions to the deceased Vijay Mehta as per clauses  

9 and 11(h) of the Trust Deed vide the Resolution of  

the  Trust  dated  30.8.2001  stood  established  and  

proved against them but they cannot be held guilty  

for the same as the appellant herself was a signatory  

to the above Resolution. The Division Bench of the

Page 6

6

High Court vide order dated 1.12.2010 declined to  

interfere with the order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the  

learned  single  Judge  and  found  that  the  same  is  

justified  after  considering  that  the  appellant  

herself was a party to the above mentioned Resolution  

that has appointed the deceased Vijay Mehta as the  

Managing Trustee of the Trust. Further, no steps were  

taken for the cancellation of the Resolution by her  

as she did not even enter into the witness box before  

the JCC to justify her conduct that she is not a  

signatory  to  the  Resolution  wherein  the  deceased  

Vijay Mehta was appointed as the Managing Trustee by  

other Trustees who are respondent nos.2 to 9 in the  

present appeal. Further, the High Court held that the  

appellant  did  not  object  to  his  functioning  as  a  

Managing Trustee at the time when all the powers were  

being delegated to him and found that the petition  

was not seriously contested before the learned single  

Judge and rejected the appeal of the appellant.  

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the  

Division Bench of the High Court, the present appeal  

is filed by the appellant with a prayer to set aside

Page 7

7

the judgments and orders of the JCC and the High  

Court by quashing the same and requested to pass such  

orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the  

facts and circumstances of the case by urging various  

facts and legal contentions.

8. Mr.  V.  Giri,  the  learned  senior  counsel  on  

behalf  of  the  appellant  has  contended  that  the  

appellant  was  not  present  in  any  of  the  meetings  

during  the  relevant  period,  i.e.  30.3.2002  and  

1.4.2007  and  in  particular  the  meetings  held  on  

30.8.2001 and 19.7.2002 which fact has been deposed  

by Mr. Kishor K. Mehta (the original respondent No.10  

before the JCC), the husband of the appellant in the  

proceedings  before  the  JCC.  The  JCC  however,  has  

erroneously exonerated respondent Nos. 2 to 9 and has  

imposed punishment for the removal of the deceased  

Vijay Mehta only, in exercise of its discretionary  

power under the provision of Section 41D of the Act  

even though respondent Nos. 2 to 9 were also found  

guilty  of  nonfeasance  and  misfeasance  charges  in  

respect  of  the  Trust  properties.  Therefore,  the  

exercise  of  the  discretionary  power  under  the

Page 8

8

provision of Section 41D of the Act by the JCC is  

erroneous  in  law  as  he  has  failed  to  impose  any  

penalty  against  them  as  provided  under  the  above  

provision of the Act.  

9. Further, it is contended by the learned senior  

counsel for the appellant that the appointment of the  

deceased Vijay Mehta as the Managing Trustee of the  

Trust on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 9 cannot be  

construed as the abdication of the core functions of  

the Trust as the trustees have to prudentially manage  

the affairs of the Trust in such a manner as a man of  

ordinary  prudence  would  do.  He  has  placed  strong  

reliance upon Section 36A of the Act in support of  

the above legal contentions and has further contended  

that the provision under Section 15 of the Indian  

Trust Act, 1882, which provision reiterates that a  

trustee is bound to deal with the Trust properties as  

carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal  

with such property, as if it were his own. Sections  

46 and 47 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, state that  

the trustee cannot renounce his office that requires  

him  to  discharge  his  duties  and  functions  and  he

Page 9

9

cannot delegate the same to a co-trustee unless the  

instrument of trust so provides.

   Therefore, it is contended by the learned senior  

counsel that non exercise of the discretionary powers  

by  the  JCC  properly  and  not  imposing  penalty  as  

provided  under  Section  41D  of  the  Act  upon  the  

respondent nos. 2 to 9 is erroneous in law which  

order of him has been erroneously approved by the  

High Court in the impugned judgment and order and  

therefore,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant  has  prayed  for  setting  aside  the  same.  

Further, during the course of submission, the learned  

senior  counsel  had  produced  an  affidavit  dated  

06.01.2015 on behalf of the appellant, wherein the  

Minutes Book of the Trust, for the period 2000-2007  

was  produced  before  this  Court  in  support  of  his  

contention, the said Minutes Book is produced by him  

to highlight the facts that if they are read as they  

stand, the same would unequivocally and predominantly  

demonstrate that the original respondent Nos. 1 to 8  

before the JCC were positively aware about the mala  

fide  acts  of  the  deceased  Managing  Trustee  Vijay

Page 10

10

Mehta  for  which  he  had  been  dismissed  from  the  

trusteeship of the Trust.  

10. Further,  the  Minutes  of  the  Meetings  of  the  

Trust during the relevant period would point out that  

all the major decisions of the deceased Vijay Mehta  

were conveyed by him to the other trustees and the  

findings recorded by the JCC on this aspect in his  

judgment  and  order  are  enough  to  show  that  the  

respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in the present case and other  

trustees  were  very  much  aware  of  the  various  

transactions and functions of the Trust. In these  

circumstances,  the  JCC  could  not  have  exonerated  

respondent Nos. 2 to 9 by holding that they were  

unaware of the misdeeds of the deceased Vijay Mehta  

in  the  affairs  of  the  Trust  as  they  could  have  

interfered and taken corrective steps to save the  

Trust from any further losses. The learned senior  

counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance  

upon the decision of the Privy Council in the case of  

Lala Man Mohan Das v. Janki Prasad & Ors.1 in support  

of his legal contention to show that the law does not  

permit delegation of the powers and functions by the  

1   AIR (32) 1945 Privy Council 23

Page 11

11

Trustee in favour of another Trustee except in cases  

of necessity or with the consent of the beneficiary  

or the authority of the Trust Deed itself and also to  

show that there is delegation of some functions only.  

However,  the  delegation  of  all  functions  and  all  

powers is nothing short of the abdication of the same  

in favour of a new body of men and also to further  

show  that  the  act  of  one  trustee  done  with  the  

sanction and approval of a co-trustee may be regarded  

as an act of both. Therefore, the non exercise of his  

discretionary  powers  and  the  non  imposition  of  

penalty by the JCC on respondent nos. 2 to 9 as  

provided under Section 41D of the Act is erroneous in  

law which has further been erroneously upheld by the  

High Court in the impugned judgment and order.  

11.  On the other hand, it has been contended by Dr.  

Rajeev Dhawan, the learned senior counsel appearing  

for the respondent nos. 2 to 9 that both the JCC as  

well as the High Court took into consideration the  

fact that they cannot be held responsible because  

they  had  completely  delegated  their  powers  and  

functions to the deceased Vijay Mehta and therefore,

Page 12

12

they are not responsible for any acts of omission and  

commission  committed  by  the  Managing  Trustee  and  

hence no action could be taken against them under the  

provision of Section 41D of the Act by the JCC.  

12. He has further vehemently sought to justify the  

findings and reasons recorded in the judgment and  

order in not imposing penalty upon them by the JCC  

which has been concurred with by the High Court based  

on clauses 9 and 11(h) of the Trust Deed which permit  

the trustees of the Trust to delegate their powers  

and  duties  to  the  Managing  Trustee  as  has  been  

delegated by respondent nos. 2 to 9 in favour of the  

deceased Vijay Mehta, who was the Managing Trustee of  

the Trust, by passing the Resolution of the Trust  

dated 30.8.2001, to which Resolution, the appellant  

is  also  the  signatory.  He  has  also  placed  strong  

reliance upon clauses 9 and 11(h) of the Trust Deed,  

which enables the Trustees to delegate their powers  

and duties in favour of another trustee.

13. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance  

upon  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Sheikh  Abdul  

Kayum & Ors. v. Mulla Alibhai & Ors.2 to substantiate  

2  (1963) 3 SCR 623

Page 13

13

his legal submission that the aforesaid clause of the  

Trust Deed enables respondent nos. 2 to 9 to delegate  

their powers and duties to the Managing Trustee of  

the Trust. Further, he has submitted that as is clear  

from the minutes of the Resolution of the Trust held  

on  30.8.2001,  the  appellant  was  present  in  the  

meeting of the Resolution. On the basis of the same,  

the  JCC  has  rightly  held  that  the  appellant  was  

present in the meeting and the Resolution was valid.  

He  has  further  placed  reliance  upon  the  findings  

recorded  by  the  JCC  and  the  High  Court  in  the  

impugned judgment and orders wherein they have held  

that  the  delegation  of  powers  and  duties  by  

respondent nos. 2 to 9 in favour of the deceased  

Vijay  Mehta  is  proper  and  non  imposition  of  

punishment upon them by both the JCC and the High  

Court for the reason that their culpability on the  

charges  has  not  been  proved  by  the  appellant  and  

therefore, it is urged by him that they are legal and  

valid and the same cannot be interfered with by this  

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction.  

14. The learned senior counsel for the respondent

Page 14

14

nos. 2 to 9 has also placed strong reliance on the  

findings of the JCC in his judgment and order and  

upon  the  provisions  of  Section  41D  of  the  Act,  

contending that the JCC has rightly exercised his  

discretionary  power  in  not  imposing  penalty  upon  

respondent nos. 2 to 9, which has also been noted by  

the High Court stating that the findings recorded by  

the JCC against the said respondents did not warrant  

interference by the High Court to impose penalty as  

provided under Section 41D of the Act. Alternatively,  

he has also submitted that the charges made against  

the  above  respondents  do  not  warrant  exercise  of  

power by the JCC under Section 41D of the Act to  

impose penalty upon the above respondents, as the  

said  provisions  would  have  serious  consequence  by  

imposing punishment upon the respondent Nos. 2 to 9  

and  therefore,  the  same  shall  not  be  strictly  

adhered to.

15. Further it has been contended by him that the  

appellant was also one of the trustees of the Trust  

at the meeting on 30.8.2001, who had also delegated  

her powers and functions in favour of the Managing

Page 15

15

Trustee and she did not even enter into the witness  

box before the JCC to refute her participation in the  

meeting and her signature on the Resolution passed on  

the date referred to above, wherein she has delegated  

her powers and functions in favour of the deceased  

Vijay Mehta. Further, she did not produce the Trust  

records when asked by the JCC to do so, for this  

reason  alone  the  JCC  should  have  rejected  the  

application of the appellant filed against respondent  

nos. 2 to 9.  

16. It  is  further  vehemently  contended  by  the  

learned senior counsel for the above respondents that  

the appellant has indulged in the abuse of process of  

the Authority of the JCC by filing a complaint before  

him when she herself was complicit in the delegation  

of powers and functions to the deceased Vijay Mehta.  

Thus,  she  cannot  contend  that  the  delegation  of  

powers and duties to the said Vijay Mehta by the  

trustees-respondent nos. 2 to 9, vide the Resolution  

of  the  Trust  dated  30.8.2001  is  an  invalid  

delegation. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for  

the  respondents  submits  that  the  view  of  the  JCC

Page 16

16

which has been rightly concurred with by the High  

Court  is  legal  and  valid.  Hence,  no  substantial  

question of law is involved in this case for the  

consideration  and  interference  by  this  Court  in  

exercise of its appellate jurisdiction against the  

impugned  judgment  and  order.  The  other  learned  

counsels on behalf of the other respondents have also  

adopted the submission of the learned senior counsel  

who  has  argued  on  behalf  of  the  respondent  

Nos. 2 to 9.

17. With reference to the abovementioned rival legal  

contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we have  

examined the impugned judgments and orders of the JCC  

as well as the High Court to find out whether any  

substantial question of law would arise in exercise  

of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. After  

careful examination of the documents produced by the  

appellant before this Court and on a careful perusal  

of the judgments and orders of the JCC and the High  

Court,  we  are  of  the  view  that  no  substantial  

question of law would arise in this case as there is  

no miscarriage of justice for our interference. In

Page 17

17

support of the above said conclusions arrived at by  

us, we record our reasons as hereunder:-

   It  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  the  Lilavati  

Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust is a public registered  

Trust under the provisions of the Act. The clauses 9  

and 11(h) of the Trust Deed of the Trust which are  

extracted below provide for the delegation of the  

powers and functions by the trustees of the Trust by  

appointing one or more of the existing Trustees from  

among themselves to discharge all such powers and  

functions of the trustees of the Trust as they may  

deem  fit  and  proper.  The  relevant  clauses  of  the  

Trust Deed read thus:-

“9. The trustees for the time being of these  presents  may  appoint  one  or  more  of  the  trustees  from  among  them  as  the  Managing  Trustee  or  Managing  Trustees,  with  all  or  such of the powers and authorities of the  Trustees as the Trustees may think fit, and  may  from  time  to  time  withdraw  any  such  powers and authorities. 11. For the accomplishment of the Trustees  of these presents and without prejudice to  the generality of any powers hereby or by  law conferred or implied  or vested in the  Trustees  the  following  powers  and  authorities  are  hereby  expressly  conferred  on the Trustees, that is to say :- (h).To  delegate  by  Power  of  Authority  or  otherwise  to  any  Trustee  or  Trustees  or  other persons whomsoever any power implied

Page 18

18

by law or conferred by statute or vested in  the  Trustees  by  these  presents  but  the  Trustees  shall  not  be  held  liable  or  responsible for the acts or defaults of any  persons  or  person  but  only  for  their  own  respective acts and defaults;”  

18. The  findings  of  the  JCC  are  based  on  the  

pleadings  and  the  material  evidence  produced  on  

record  by  the  parties  and  the  Resolution  dated  

30.8.2001, wherein the trustees, respondent nos.2 to  

9 including the appellant of the Trust had delegated  

their  powers  and  functions  to  the  deceased  Vijay  

Mehta  to  manage  the  affairs  of  the  trust.  The  

relevant paragraphs 1 to 4 and 9 of the Resolution  

dated 30.08.2001 regarding the delegation of powers  

given  to  the  delegatee  deceased  Vijay  Mehta  read  

thus:-

“Resolved that Shri Vijay K. Mehta be and is  hereby appointed as Managing Trustee of the  Trust  with  absolute  and  sole  powers  and  authority in respect of the management of the  Trust  and  all  the  activities  of  the  Trust  subject to provisions of the law applicable to  a Charitable Trust including the following :-

1. To  manage  the  affairs  of  Lilavati  Hospital  &  Research  Centre,  Mumbai  in  all respects  viz.  Financial, Technical,  Administrative  and  Management  of  the  Hospital. 2. To  manage  the  affairs  of  Lilavati  Kirtilal  Mehta  Charitable  Hospital,  Palanpur in all respects viz. Financial,

Page 19

19

Technical Administrative and Management  of the Hospital. 3. To appoint and authorise any agency  and/or bankers and/or any executives to  execute the functions and/or any work of  the  activities  of  the  Trust  and  to  appoint  any  Trustees  to  execute  any  agreements,  documents  or  any  deeds  on  behalf of the Trust. 4. To accept donations of money and/or  property  movable  or  immovable  on  such  terms and conditions as the Trustees may  think  fit  not  being  inconsistent  with  these  presents  of  the  Trust  hereby  established.  No  donation  however,  will  be accepted with a condition requiring  change in the name of the Trust and its  present activities.    XXX     XXX     XXX 9. To give donations or subscriptions  out of the Trust Fund or income thereof  to  such  public  charitable  institutions  funds  for  their  all  or  any  of  the  objects or purposes.”

19. Thus, a careful perusal of the clauses 9 and 11  

(h) of the Trust deed would clearly go to show that  

there is ample scope for such delegation of powers  

and functions of the Trustees to another Trustee or  

Trustees of the Trust to act on their behalf. In  

support of the same, the learned senior counsel on  

behalf of the respondents has rightly placed reliance  

upon the judgment of this Court in the case of J.P.  

Srivastava  &  Sons  (P)  Ltd.  v. Gwalior  Sugar  Co.

Page 20

20

Ltd.3, which reads thus:-

“29. Therefore although as a rule, trustees  must  execute  the  duties  of  their  office  jointly, this general principle is subject  to the following exceptions when one trustee  may  act  for  all  (  1  )  where  the  trust  deed    allows the trusts to be executed by one or  more or by a majority of trustees; (  2  ) where    there is express sanction or approval of the  act  by  the  co-trustees;  (  3  )  where  the    delegation of power is necessary; (  4  ) where    the  beneficiaries  competent  to  contract  consent  to  the  delegation;  (  5  )  where  the    delegation to a co-trustee is in the regular  course of the business; (  6  ) where the co-   trustee  merely  gives  effect  to  a  decision  taken by the trustees jointly.”

             (emphasis laid by this Court)

20. The JCC has rightly recorded his finding of fact  

on the basis of the Resolution dated 30.8.2001 of the  

Trust, holding that the appellant was also one of the  

signatories to the said Resolution and the learned  

senior counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 9  

has rightly pointed out to us that the appellant was  

present in the meeting on 30.8.2001 as is clear from  

the Minutes of the Meeting, which fact has also been  

recorded by the JCC in his order dated 25.9.2009. The  

fact  that  the  signature  of  the  appellant  in  the  

Resolution is seriously disputed before this Court,  

cannot be accepted by us in view of the finding of  3  (2005) 1 SCC 172

Page 21

21

fact recorded by the JCC based on record which has  

been rightly concurred with by the High Court and the  

said finding cannot be said to be erroneous in this  

appeal  for  the  reason  that  the  appellant  did  not  

enter into the witness box before the JCC to refute  

the correctness of her signature and the Minutes Book  

of  the  Resolution. Further,  the  husband  of  the  

appellant, original respondent No.10 before the JCC  

had  entered  into  the  witness  box,  to  support  the  

charges made by the appellant against the respondent  

nos. 2 to 9, however, he has not deposed any other  

evidence except filing affidavit evidence before the  

JCC. The Minutes Book of the Trust as well as the  

Resolution  from  the  year  2000  to  2007  and  the  

additional compilation paper book produced in this  

case are not taken on record by this Court as the  

same have been rightly opposed by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,  

the  learned  senior  counsel,  on  behalf  of  the  

respondent Nos. 2 to 9 contending that the same had  

not been placed as evidence on record before the JCC  

and therefore, the same cannot be looked into in this  

appeal. By a bare perusal of the Minutes Book of the

Page 22

22

Resolution, wherein the Resolution of the Trust dated  

30.8.2001 was recorded, the JCC has held on the facts  

and evidence on record that there was mismanagement  

of  Trust  by  the  Managing  Trustee,  deceased  Vijay  

Mehta.  Further,  it  is  pointed  out  by  the  learned  

senior counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to  

9  that  Mr.  Kishor  Mehta,  the  original  respondent  

No.10  before  the  JCC,  had  no  knowledge  of  the  

transactions in respect of which charges have been  

framed  against  them  as  the  financial  transactions  

were handled solely by deceased Vijay Mehta.  

21. Further, the reliance placed upon Sections 46  

and 47 of the Act of 1882, by the learned senior  

counsel on behalf of the appellant is not applicable  

to the public charitable Trust as held by this Court  

in the case of  Thayarammal  v. Kanakammal & Ors.4,  

which reads thus:-

“15. The contents of the stone inscription  clearly indicate that the owner has dedicated  the  property  for  use  as  “Dharamchatra”  meaning a resting place for the travellers  and pilgrims visiting the Thyagaraja Temple.  Such a dedication in the strict legal sense  is  neither  a  “gift”  as  understood  in  the  Transfer of Property Act which requires an  acceptance  by  the  donee  of  the  property  

4   (2005) 1 SCC 457

Page 23

23

donated  nor is  it  a  “trust”.  The  Indian  Trusts  Act  as  clear  by  its  preamble  and  contents is applicable only to private trusts  and not to public trusts. A dedication by a  Hindu for religious or charitable purposes is  neither a “gift” nor a “trust” in the strict  legal sense….”

   Therefore, the delegation of all the powers and  

functions by respondent nos. 2 to 9 and also the  

appellant in favour of the Managing Trustee of the  

Trust deceased Vijay Mehta, is permissible in law as  

the instrument of the Trust provides for that.

22. The  findings  of  facts  are  recorded  in  the  

judgment and order by the JCC at para 255 which reads  

thus:-

“255.  In  the  application,  allegations  are  made  against  all  the  trustees.  However,  specific allegations with regard to all the  charges  are  against  only  respondent  No.9.  The tenor of paragraph numbers 10,27, 2 etc.  of the application is that he is mismanaging  the affairs of the trust. He is trying to  carry out the activities of the trust single  handedly.  Names  of  Mr.  Dushyant  Mehta  and  Mr. Suresh Motwani are repeatedly mentioned  as  associates,  or  cohorts  of  respondent  No.9.  The  allegations  against  rest  of  the  trustees  are  that  of  collusions  and  connivance. But the allegations are general  in  nature.  They  are  vague.  No  specific  allegations  are  levelled  against  the  respondent Nos. 1 to 8.”

  The  typed  copy  of  the  order  of  the  JCC  was

Page 24

24

produced  in  this  case  is  not  a  correct  one.  The  

learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 9  

has produced the certified copy of the order of the  

JCC, which reads thus:

“265. To sum, I hold that the charges 1 to  8 are established against respondent No.9.  However,  there  is  no  evidence  against  respondent  Nos.1  to  8  to  hold  them  responsible for the charged transaction.”

   By a careful reading of the above extracted  

paragraphs from the order of the JCC makes it clear  

that no complicity is proved against respondent Nos.  

2 to 9, for the reason that the JCC found that there  

is no evidence against them to hold them responsible  

for the charged transaction, which means that the JCC  

has held that the culpability against respondent Nos.  

2 to 9 are not established. Further, the JCC has  

rightly  exercised  his  discretionary  power  under  

Section 41D of the Act in a responsible way and not  

in an arbitrary manner, as could be seen from the  

reading  of  paragraphs  261  and  262  of  his  finding  

which read thus:-

“261. To conclude, I do not find anything  against respondent Nos. 1 to 8 to connect

Page 25

25

them  directly  with  the  alleged  transactions. The respondents No. 2,3,4  and 7 admittedly joined board of trustees  much  later  i.e.  in  the  year  2004.  It  would be wrong to blame them for the acts  done  in  past,  before  they  joined  as  trustees. 262. These respondents may be negligent  in  putting  blind  faith  in  respondent  No.9.  It  was  wrong  to  give  free  hand  trust  affairs  to  him.  They  were  over  dependent  on  respondent  No.9.  Probably  the facts that he is the eldest member of  Mehta family, and since he took over as  the Managing Trustee, the hospital earned  both fortune and fame might have weighed  much in their minds, for which they put  total faith and reliance on him. They are  certainly  to  be  criticized  for  that.  However,  their  overdependence  on  respondent  No.9,  in  action,  negligence  and lack of interest, would not warrant  their dismissal.”

    The said findings and observations of the JCC  

are affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court  

in its judgment, which reads thus:-

“….The Joint Charity Commission has given  reasons for making the order for removal  of  respondent  No.9  only.  The  reasons  given by the Joint Charity Commissioner  can by no stretch of imagination be said  to  be  perverse  or  impossible.  In  our  opinion,  therefore  considering  that  the  order is within the jurisdiction of the  Joint  Charity  Commissioner  and  the  reasons given by him for making the order  are also possible and plausible reasons.  The learned Single Judge was justified in  not interfering with the order. We have  also been informed that when the learned

Page 26

26

Single Judge was considering the validity  of the order in the Writ Petition, the  finding  recorded  in  the  order  against  respondent No.9 were stayed in the appeal  filed  against  that  order  by  him  before  the Competent Court.”

    23. Thus, in view of the fact that the appellant did  

not enter into the witness box and also the fact that  

similar charges as levelled against the respondent  

nos. 2 to 9 were also pending against her before the  

JCC for being the signatory to the Resolution dated  

30.8.2001 in delegating her powers and functions to  

the deceased Vijay Mehta, the JCC should not have  

accepted  the  evidence  of  the  original  respondent  

No.10 before the JCC and recorded the findings on  

charges in his order. Further, he has rightly held  

that the guilt of respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are not  

proved and has also held that they are negligent for  

only delegating their powers and functions to the  

Managing  Trustee,  deceased  Vijay  Mehta  but  the  

charges levelled against them are not proved as they  

are  not  responsible  for  the  alleged  transactions,  

therefore, there is no complicity on the allegations  

made against them. The said conclusion of the JCC is  

based on facts and evidence on record, therefore, he

Page 27

27

has rightly exonerated them from the liability and  

has not imposed punishment under Section 41D of the  

Act, upon respondent nos. 2 to 9, in exercise of his  

power in a reasonable and fair manner and therefore,  

the  same  cannot  be  said  to  be  arbitrary  and  

unreasonable in nature.  Therefore, the High Court  

has rightly concurred with the findings of the JCC in  

exonerating  the  respondent  nos.  2  to  9  from  the  

charges  levelled  against  them  by  passing  a  well  

reasoned judgment and order.

24. The  cases  relied  upon  by  the  learned  senior  

counsel for the appellant, i.e. Sheikh Abdul Kayum &  

Ors. v. Mulla Alibhai & Ors.(supra), J.P. Srivastava  

& Sons (P) Ltd. v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd.(supra) and  

D.  Gopalaswami  Mudaliar  v. Subramanya  Pillai  &  

Anr.5, have no relevance to the fact situation of the  

present case, as they do not support the case of the  

appellant.  The  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant has strongly placed reliance on the case of  

Lala Man Mohan Das v. Janki Prasad & Ors.(supra), the  

relevant extract of the judgment of the Privy Council  

reads thus :- 5  (1942) 1 MLJ 272

Page 28

28

“In the case of co-trustees the office is  a joint one. Where the administration of  the trust is vested in co-trustees, they  all form as it were but one collective  trustee, and therefore must execute the  duties  of  the  office  in  their  joint  capacity. It is not uncommon to hear one  of  several  trustees  spoken  of  as  the  acting trustee, but the Court knows no  such  distinction;  all  who  accept  the  office are in the eyes of the law] acting  trustees.  If  anyone  refuse  or  be  incapable to join, it is not competent  for the others to proceed without him,  but the administration of the trust must  in  that  case  devolve  upon  the  Court.  However, the act of one trustee done with  the sanction and approval of a co-trustee  may be regarded as the act of both. But  such  sanction  or  approval  must  be  strictly proved.”

However, the said decision cannot be applied to the  

fact situation of this case in view of the facts and  

the evidence placed on record.

25. For  the  aforesaid  reasons,  we  hold  that  the  

impugned judgment and order(s) of the High Court and  

the order of the JCC are legal and valid and the same  

cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise  

of  its  appellate  jurisdiction. The  appeal  is  

dismissed.  

26. Since  the  appeal  against  the  findings  and

Page 29

29

penalties imposed against the deceased Vijay Mehta is  

pending before the Civil Court which is being pursued  

by his legal representatives and therefore, the Civil  

Court  is  required  to  examine  the  said  case  

independently  without  being  influenced  by  the  

observations  and  reasons  assigned  by  us  in  this  

judgment. We would like to make it very clear that  

the said appeal is required to be examined in the  

backdrop of the legal grounds and contentions urged  

therein  independently  and  dispose  the  same  in  

accordance with law.  

               ……………………………………………………………J.                               [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

   ……………………………………………………………J.  

                            [C.NAGAPPAN] New Delhi, March 12, 2015

Page 30

30

ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment      COURT NO.10             SECTION IX                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal  No(s).  ….../2015 arising from SLP(C) No.  4148/2011 CHARU KISHOR MEHTA                                 Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS JT.CHARITY COMMR. GR. BOMBAY REG. & ORS.           Respondent(s)

Date : 12/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s)  *                     For M/s. Khaitan & Co.                       For Respondent(s) Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Adv.

For K. Ashar & Co.                               Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the  judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.  Justice C. Nagappan.

Leave granted. The  appeal  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  signed  

Reportable Judgment.       (VINOD KR.JHA)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file) (* None appeared)