Law Updates
Is Delay in Filing Change Reports Curable? SC Explains!
Key Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court clarified that the delay in filing a Change Report under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, is curable and does not automatically invalidate the assumption of office by a new Vahiwatdar or Trustee (paras 21-22).
Court’s View
The Court held that a hypertechnical approach to delay in filing Change Reports is unwarranted, as such delays are curable and do not automatically impact the changes in the trust’s administration (paras 25-26).
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and confirmed the acceptance of Change Reports Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the current Vahiwatdar and Trustees to continue administering the Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi (paras 26-27).
Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules Cited
Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 41D, 66, 70, and 70A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Case of the Appellant
The appellant, Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, challenged the High Court’s decision that invalidated the acceptance of Change Reports due to a delay in filing, arguing that the delay was curable and did not affect the validity of the trust administration changes.
Appellant Relied On
The appellant relied on the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and relevant case law that allows for the condonation of delay in filing Change Reports, arguing that the High Court’s decision was overly technical and did not consider the broader context.
Case of the Respondent
The respondents, five devotees of Shri Mallikarjun Temple, argued that the delay in filing the Change Reports rendered them invalid and that proper procedures were not followed in the appointment of the current Vahiwatdar and Trustees.
Respondent Relied On
The respondents relied on the statutory requirement for timely filing of Change Reports under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and contended that the delay of over 17 years was unjustifiable and affected the legitimacy of the trust administration.
Question & Answer
Question: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the delay in filing Change Reports under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950?
Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that the delay in filing Change Reports is curable and does not automatically invalidate the assumption of office by a new Vahiwatdar or Trustee (paras 21-22).
Question: Why did the Supreme Court overturn the High Court’s decision in the Mallikarjun Devasthan case?
Answer: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision because it found the High Court’s focus on the delay in filing Change Reports to be hypertechnical and not in alignment with the curable nature of such delays under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (paras 25-26).
Question: What is the significance of the proviso added to Section 22(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, in 2017?
Answer: The proviso added to Section 22(1) in 2017 clarifies that the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner can condone the delay in filing Change Reports if sufficient cause is shown, reinforcing that such delays are curable (para 20).
Question: How did the Supreme Court view the objections raised by the devotees regarding the Change Reports?
Answer: The Supreme Court viewed the objections raised by the devotees as lacking merit and driven by an inimical attitude towards the trust’s administration and the founder’s family, noting that proper procedures had been followed in the acceptance of the Change Reports (paras 23-24).
Question: What directives did the Supreme Court give regarding the administration of the Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi?
Answer: The Supreme Court confirmed the acceptance of the Change Reports and allowed the current Vahiwatdar and Trustees to continue administering the Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi (paras 26-27).
Details of Case
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar
Date of Order: April 25, 2024
Case Name: Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi vs. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and others
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. .…….. – ……… of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 15621-15622 of 2021)
Life Imprisonment Affirmed for Unlawful Assembly Leading to Murder
Key Judicial Interpretation: The court held that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies do not discredit their overall credibility if the testimonies are largely consistent and
Supreme Court Judgment: Rajesh Kumar vs. Anand Kumar & Ors. (May 2024)
Is Personal Testimony Crucial in Specific Performance? SC Explains!
The Court held that the agreement to sell was void as it was not executed by all co-owners and the plaintiff’s non-appearance in the witness box undermined his case for specific performance of the contract (paras 6-7).
Is Possession Key for Hindu Female Ownership? SC Explains!
The Court held that the lack of possession by Smt. Nandkanwarbai or her adopted son, Kailash Chand, meant they could not claim ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, rendering the Revenue suit for partition unsustainable (paras 26-27).
Can Rajasthan State Collect Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies? SC Explains!
The Court emphasized that while only the Parliament can prescribe the rate of stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 91 of List I, the states have the power to impose and collect the duty as per the rate prescribed by Parliament (paras 9-19).
SC: All Parties Must Be Heard in ‘Minutes of Order’ Cases
The Supreme Court clarified that the practice of passing orders based on “Minutes of Order” requires careful consideration to ensure all necessary parties are impleaded and that such orders are lawful (paras 16-20).
