Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Court Appoints Receiver Due to Consistent Failure to Maintain Records and Misuse of Trust Funds: Allahabad High Court Uphold Appointment of Receiver

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the appointment of a receiver for the trust property, originally decided by the trial court. The judgment, delivered by Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit on 30th May 2024, upheld the trial court's determination that the trust, created by Jai Narain through a will deed dated 25th February 1925, is a public religious trust. The court found substantial evidence of mismanagement and misappropriation of trust funds by the appellant, Laxman Sahgal.

Background: The case originated from a dispute over the nature and management of a trust created by Jai Narain through a will deed dated 25th February 1925. The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking the removal of the appellant and other trustees due to alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of trust funds. The trial court appointed a receiver to manage the trust property, a decision that was contested by the appellant on the grounds of urgency and the nature of the trust.

Nature of the Trust: The court observed that the trust created by Jai Narain is a public religious trust, intended to benefit the community. "The trust's public nature is evident from the will deed and the subsequent handling of the trust properties," noted Justice Dixit. The trial court's decision to classify the trust as public was based on thorough scrutiny of the historical documents and the actions of the trustees over the years.

Misappropriation of Trust Funds: The judgment detailed the mismanagement of trust funds by the appellant, who treated the trust as a private entity. The court noted, "The appellant has not maintained any proper accounts for the income and expenditure of the trust and has utilized the income for personal use." This misappropriation of funds justified the trial court's decision to appoint a receiver to safeguard the trust property.

Appointment of Receiver: Addressing the appellant's contention regarding the lack of urgency in appointing a receiver, the High Court found that the trial court had acted within its discretion. "The appointment of a receiver is a preventive measure to ensure that the trust property is managed properly and not further misused," Justice Dixit stated. The court emphasized that the primary objective was to protect the trust's assets and ensure their proper utilization for religious purposes.

Legal Reasoning: The court's legal reasoning was grounded in the principles of trust law and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment referenced several precedents to support the decision, including T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty and others, which outlines the conditions under which a receiver can be appointed. The court affirmed that any interested party could file for the appointment of a receiver to prevent further damage to the trust property.

Justice Dixit remarked, "The consistent failure of the appellant to maintain transparent records and his misuse of trust funds necessitated the intervention of the court through the appointment of a receiver."

Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court's ruling reinforces the importance of proper management of public religious trusts and underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding such entities from misappropriation. By upholding the trial court's decision, the judgment ensures that the trust property will be managed in accordance with its intended religious and public purposes, setting a significant precedent for future trust management cases.

Date of Decision: 30th May 2024

Laxman Sahgal vs. Dinesh Bajpai and 6 Others

Similar News