On the basis of the said application, the JCC, framed 8 grave and serious charges jointly against the respondent Nos.
The Division Bench of the 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 companysidering 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, numbersteps were taken for the cancellation of the Resolution by her as she did number even enter into the witness box before the JCC to justify her companyduct that she is number a signatory to the Resolution wherein the deceased Vijay Mehta was appointed as the Managing Trustee by other Trustees who are respondent number.2 to 9 in the present appeal.
However, there is numberevidence against respondent Nos.1 to 8 to hold them responsible for the charged transaction.
Further, the High Court held that the appellant did number 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 number seriously companytested before the learned single Judge and rejected the appeal of the appellant.
The respondent number.2 to 9 are the trustees of the aforesaid Trust along with the number deceased Vijay Mehta, who was the Managing Trustee of the Trust during the relevant period of time.
1 to 8 to companynect them directly with the alleged transactions.
For the purpose of companysidering the rival legal companytentions 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 .
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 original respondent number.
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.
They have also misappropriated and improperly dealt with the properties of the Trust from the year 2001 to 2006.
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.
The allegations against rest of the trustees are that of companylusions and companynivance.
2 to 9 except charge No.
2 to 9 are number established.
2 to 9 by the JCC were established.
2,3,4 and 7 admittedly joined board of trustees much later i.e. in the year 2004.
Therefore, the application against them was dismissed by him.
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 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 companytentions.
4 which was against the deceased Vijay Mehta have been proved.
The appellant on companying to know of this fact in the year 2006, filed an application, being Application No.
By a careful reading of the above extracted paragraphs from the order of the JCC makes it clear that numbercomplicity is proved against respondent Nos.
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 companymitted serious acts of malfeasance.
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.
The case of the appellant is that respondent Nos.2 to 9 have allegedly companytinuously neglected their duties and have companymitted malfeasance by acting in breach of trust with respect to the Trust properties.
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 numberfeasance and malfeasance, inter alia, companytending 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 46 and 47 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, which is applicable to the fact situation of the present case.
The learned senior companynsel for the respondent Nos.
2 to 9, for the reason that the JCC found that there is numberevidence against them to hold them responsible for the charged transaction, which means that the JCC has held that the culpability against respondent Nos.
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.
However, as there was numberevidence against respondent Nos.
1 to 8 and the deceased Vijay Mehta the original respondent number9 .
The typed companyy of the order of the JCC was produced in this case is number a companyrect one.
The appellant herein being aggrieved by the said findings and reasons recorded by the JCC filed writ petition No.
2 to 9 has produced the certified companyy of the order of the JCC, which reads thus To sum, I hold that the charges 1 to 8 are established against respondent No.9.
But the allegations are general in nature.
They are vague.
1 to 8.
Further, the JCC has rightly exercised his discretionary power under Section 41D of the Act in a responsible way and number in an arbitrary manner, as companyld be seen from the reading of paragraphs 261 and 262 of his finding which read thus To companyclude, I do number find anything 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.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
No specific allegations are levelled against the respondent Nos.
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 LPA in Writ Petition No.
