{"id":200016,"date":"2009-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-27T12:37:14","modified_gmt":"2017-01-27T07:07:14","slug":"bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: K.U. Chandiwal<\/div>\n
                     (1)\n    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n             BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n         SECOND APPEAL NO.207 OF 2008\n\n\n         Date of decision: 3\/3\/2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n    For approval   and signature\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n         HON'BLE   MR. JUSTICE   K.U.CHANDIWAL\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    1.   Whether the Reporters of Local Papers ]                Yes\/No\n         may be allowed to see the Judgment    ]\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n    2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not ? ]              Yes\/No\n\n    3.\n                    \n         Whether Their Lordships wish to\n         the fair copy of the Judgment ?\n                                              see         ]\n                                                          ]\n                                                                Yes\/No\n\n\n    4.   Whether this case involves a substantial]              Yes\/No\n                   \n         question of law as to the interpretation]\n         of the Constitution of India, 1950,   or]\n         any order made thereunder ?             ]\n\n    5.   Whether it is to be circulated to       the      ]     Yes\/No\n         Civil Judges ?                                   ]\n      \n\n\n    6.   Whether the case involves an important           ]     Yes\/No\n   \n\n\n\n         question of law and whether a copy of            ]\n         the Order should be sent to   Bombay,            ]\n         Goa and Nagpur Office ?                          ]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n      (A.G.PARALIKAR)\n     Private Secretary\n    uniplex\/sa207-08\n    uniplex\/\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::\n                   (2)\n\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n              SECOND APPEAL NO.207 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n     1.   Bhanudas s\/o Madhavrao Deshmukh,\n          Age 72 years,\n          Occupation agriculture & Business,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n          r\/o Parali Vaijinath,\n          Taluka Parali, District Beed.\n\n     2.   Sanjay s\/o Sushilkumar Deshmukh,\n          Age 30 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n          Occupation agriculture,\n          r\/o as above.\n                                  ...APPELLANT\n                                     APPELLANT\n                                  (Original\n                                   applicants in\n                                   Dist. Court)\n\n\n\n\n                          \n          VERSUS\n\n     1.\n               \n          The Joint Charity Commissioner,\n          Latur.\n\n     2.   The Assistant Charity Commissioner,\n              \n          Beed.\n\n     3.   Rajesaheb s\/o Narharrao Deshmukh,\n          Age 72 years,\n          Occupation agriculture,\n          r\/o Ganesh Par Road, Parali,\n      \n\n\n          Taluka Parali, District Beed.\n   \n\n\n\n     4.   Amar s\/o Rajesaheb Deshmukh,\n          Age 26 years,\n          Occupation agriculture,\n          r\/o as above.\n\n\n\n\n\n     5.   Anant s\/o Purushottamrao Deshmukh,\n          Age 32 years,\n          Occupation agriculture,\n          r\/o Deshmukh Galli,\n          Parali Vaijnath,\n          Taluka Parali, District Beed.\n\n\n\n\n\n     6.   Rajesh @ Jaywant Vithalrao Deshmukh,\n          Age 38 years,\n          Occupation agriculture,\n          r\/o Near Krishna Talkies, Parali,\n          Taluka Parali, District Beed.\n\n     7.   Shamrao Santukrao Deshmukh,\n          (deceased).\n                                  ...RESPONDENTS\n                                     RESPONDENTS\n                              (Ori.Respondents\n                               in Dist. Court).\n\n\n\n\n                                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::\n                               (3)\n                                            ...\n\n     Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate, h\/f\n     Shri V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate, for the appellants.\n\n     Shri V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel, for Mr.\n     A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate, for respondent nos. 4 and 5.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n     Shri S.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent No.3\n     to 6.\n                              ...\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                        CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.\n\n                        Date:            3\/3\/2009\n                                            ...\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     1.                       Modern         Education          Society,            Parli<\/p>\n
     Vaijnath,         was     formed        on 7.8.1971.         There        were      12<\/p>\n
     trustees          and      the        Trust      Scheme,       by       amendment<\/p>\n
     dt.1.9.1984,
\n                          ig put a cap & ceiling on number of General<\/p>\n
     Body     members to be 12.                  It is a matter of record, now<\/p>\n
     only     one Trustee Shri Bhanudas ( appellant) is alive.\n<\/p>\n
     One    of    the applicant Rajesaheb expired in                         Nov.,2007<\/p>\n
     and another Trustee Shamrao expired on 6.11.2005.\n<\/p>\n
     .           The     Scheme          of Trust provides for coram of                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
     trustees, if changes are to be effected in the Trust.\n<\/p>\n
     2.                       Rajesaheb           Deshmukh, Shamrao            Deshmukh<\/p>\n
     and Nandkishore Jaju made the application to Assistant<\/p>\n
     Charity Commissioner on 24.6.2005, vide enquiry number<\/p>\n
     722\/2005.          Bhanudas and others filed objection to the<\/p>\n
     change      report.            On     hearing, the      Assistant          Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner,             by        order      dt.9.3.2006,        allowed        the<\/p>\n
     application         Enquiry No.722\/2005 and framed new scheme<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>
\n                      (4)<\/span>
\n     and appointed new committee.                   These orders were tested<\/p>\n
     by     Bhanudas        and       others before     Additional            District<\/p>\n
     Judge,        Ambejogai, in Miscellaneous Civil                    Application<\/p>\n
     No.22 of 2006.           The learned Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n
     on     hearing       both        the    sides,    by     his      order        dated<\/p>\n
     15.12.2007, dismissed the application.                        This gave rise<\/p>\n
     to     file     Second Appeal on 10.3\/2008.                 On hearing           the<\/p>\n
     Counsel,       by      order dated 7th July, 2008,                 this        Court<\/p>\n
     admitted         the         appeal       by     formulating           following<\/p>\n
     substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
                (I)     What are the guidelines for framing of<\/p>\n
                the scheme under Section 50-A of Bombay Public
\n                Trusts Act, when already a scheme is in
\n                existence ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (II)<\/p>\n
                        Whether in case of breach of existing
\n                provisions of a scheme by existing Board of<\/p>\n
                trustees, the proper remedy is to apply for
\n                removal   of   trustees or    to  apply   for
\n                modification of the existing scheme, without
\n                proving the necessity     and expediency for
\n                modification of the scheme ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.                      In       Civil Application No.3138\/2008, ad<\/p>\n
     interim       relief        in     terms of prayer        clause         ‘B’     was<\/p>\n
     granted       with      notice to respondents.              This       situation<\/p>\n
     gave     rise to numerous proceedings.                   I do not wish             to<\/p>\n
     advert to them, since such proceedings and orders have<\/p>\n
     no decisive bearing to the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     4.                      The       respondent no.3 Rajesaheb ( since<\/p>\n
     deceased)        and others made application                  (No.1807\/2009)<\/p>\n
     on     3.2.2009 to vacate the ad interim reliefs in                             C.A.\n<\/p>\n
     No.3138\/2008           in        S.A.      No.207\/2008.           During         the<\/p>\n
     extensive        submissions of said applications, both                          the<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>
\n                            (5)<\/span>
\n     learned        Counsel urged to hear and dispose the                      Second<\/p>\n
     Appeal, which prompted to give audience accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
     5.                   Mr.      Dhorde would contend, there                      was<\/p>\n
     no     legal     requirement for new scheme, as                  old      scheme<\/p>\n
     would      absorb,         accept    amendment            to       it.         The<\/p>\n
     mismanagement       or illegalities, by any of the trustees<\/p>\n
     would     not     invite     drastic       action to        invite        a    new<\/p>\n
     scheme,        as law will take its own course.                  Section 50A<\/p>\n
     cannot be invoked.          But for mismanagement by Trustees,<\/p>\n
     the     Charity     Commissioner will not be able to                      accept<\/p>\n
     new     scheme.      He     has relied to the judgment                  in     the<\/p>\n
     matter<\/p>\n
     Vs.\n<\/p>\n
                of<\/p>\n
                       Mallikarjun Basvanappa Masute and<\/p>\n
              Dattatraya Krushnath Wadane and others ( 2005(2)
\n                                                                             another<\/p>\n
     Mh.L.J.266)       and Vasantrao s\/o Vishwanathrao Mane                         and<\/p>\n
     others    V.      Apparao<\/a> s\/o Baibanna Sidore and others                           (<\/p>\n
     2008 (3) Mh.L.J.          242).\n<\/p>\n
                               242<\/span><\/p>\n
     6.                   Mr.      Deshmukh, Counsel for respondent<\/p>\n
     Nos.     3 to 6 canvassed about the inadequacy of present<\/p>\n
     scheme      of     Trust     to     cope     up      with        change          of<\/p>\n
     circumstances       and     impediments in force by virtue                       of<\/p>\n
     old scheme.       He has read the judgment in the matter of<\/p>\n
     Ramkrushna-appa           Vishweshwar-appa              Versus          Krushna<\/p>\n
     Udaybhanji Ingale and others ( 2006(2) Bom.C.R.                             294),<\/p>\n
     Saiyad    Mohammad Bakar Eledroos Vs.                  Abdulhabib           Hasan<\/p>\n
     Arab ( 1998 DGLS(Soft.) 409 = 1998 AIR (SC 1624).\n<\/p>\n
                                                1624)<\/p>\n
     7.                   The     Hon’ble Lordships of the                   Supreme<\/p>\n
     Court,      in     Saiyad     Mohammad        Bakar           Eledross           V.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>\n                        (6)<\/span>\n     Abdulhabib    Hasan Arab    ( 1998 (4)    SCC      343),\n                                                        343)        while\n\n     dealing    with   scope of Section 50-A of Bombay            Public\n\n     Trusts Act, observed:\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n               \"7.      Section 50-A infuses      the    Charity\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n<\/pre>\n
               Commissioner with power in addition to Section
\n               50 to frame, amalgamate or modify any scheme
\n               in the interest of proper management of a
\n               public trust.     This is exercised either suo
\n               motu when he has reason to believe it is<\/p>\n
               necessary to do so or when two or more persons
\n               having interest in a public trust make an
\n               application    to him in     writing    in    the
\n               prescribed manner.     This merely enables the
\n               Charity Commissioner to initiate proceedings
\n               for    settling a scheme     for    the    proper<\/p>\n
               management or administration of a          public
\n               trust.    In the background of the setting of<\/p>\n
               various provisions, the object of the Act, the
\n               Charity    Commissioner being     clothed
\n               sufficient power to deal with all exigencies
\n                                                            with<\/p>\n
               where a public trust or its trustees stray<\/p>\n
               away from its legitimate path and where the
\n               materials are before him or placed before him
\n               by   the said two      persons, then to hold
\n               abatement of proceedings on application of any
\n               procedural laws not only would amount to the
\n               curtailment    of his power      but make     him<\/p>\n
               spineless and helpless to do anything in the
\n               matter of a public trust eroding the very<\/p>\n
               object of the Act. This is a too restrictive
\n               interpretation to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
               (9)     If the interpretation sought by the
\n               learned Counsel for the appellant is to be<\/p>\n
               accepted, it would tie the hands of a Charity
\n               Commissioner not to proceed with settling a
\n               scheme inspite of material placed before him,
\n               only because one of the applicants is dead.
\n               The concept of abatement under Section 50-A
\n               would never arise, specially      in such   a
\n               situation   where  for    achieving such   an<\/p>\n
               objective he in addition is capped with power
\n               to initiate suo motu. It is not in dispute
\n               that the said two      persons have made an
\n               application in the     prescribed form.   The
\n               proceeding has been initiated in terms and in
\n               accordance with Section 50-A; this cannot be
\n               said to be improper or illegal.      Once the
\n               material is brought before him, he may on the
\n               materials or after inquiry or after giving
\n               opportunity   to the    person concerned   or
\n               trustees may or may not exercise his power<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>
\n                         (7)<\/span>
\n                depending on facts and circumstances of each
\n                case, but his exercise of power cannot be
\n                ousted either on the death or withdrawal of
\n                any one of the applicants.”\n<\/p>\n
     8.                       Sub-section    1    of Section 50A of              the<\/p>\n
     Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “50A (1):       Notwithstanding       anything
\n                contained in section 50, where the Charity
\n                Commissioner has reason to believe that, in
\n                the interest of the proper management or
\n                administration of public     trust, a scheme<\/p>\n
                should be settled for it, or where two or more
\n                persons having interest in a public trust make
\n                an application to him in writing in the
\n                prescribed manner that, in the interest of the
\n                proper management or     administration of a
\n                public trust, a scheme should be settled for<\/p>\n
                it, the Charity Commissioner may, if, after
\n                giving    the trustees of    such trust    due<\/p>\n
                opportunity to be heard, he is satisfied that
\n                it is necessary or expedient so to do, frame a
\n                scheme for the management or administration of
\n                such public trust.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.                       The powers of Charity Commissioner are<\/p>\n
     wide enough when he has reason to believe that, in the<\/p>\n
     interest       of proper management or administration of                        a<\/p>\n
     public     trust,        a scheme should be settled for it                     or,<\/p>\n
     secondly,        where two or more persons, having                  interest<\/p>\n
     in    public        trust,    make    an application         to     him,        in<\/p>\n
     writing,       in     prescribed     manner, indicating,             in        the<\/p>\n
     interest of proper management or administration of the<\/p>\n
     public     trust, a scheme should be settled for it.                           The<\/p>\n
     non     obstantate        clause     takes away effects           of      other<\/p>\n
     positions        as carved out in Section 50 which, more                       or<\/p>\n
     less,     are touching to Section 41(A), 41(B) and 41(D).\n<\/p>\n
     The     powers      in    Section     41-D    come     into       play         for<\/p>\n
     suspension,         removal    or dismissal of a trustee                  of     a<\/p>\n
     public trust.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                 (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     10                         In      the     situation,         the        making       of<\/p>\n
     application           by    the applicants ( respondent                    herein),<\/p>\n
     will     have to be looked into from the angle of Section<\/p>\n
     50-A.         The Charity Commissioner cannot be expected to<\/p>\n
     stave     off        and shrink the obligation cast on                      him       by<\/p>\n
     simply        taking       recourse        to    Section      41-B        or        41-D,<\/p>\n
     without curing the defect in entirety.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     11.                        Now,       reverting to the new scheme, Mr.\n\n     Dhorde        has     furnished comparative chart                   to     impress,\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n     that     new scheme is identical in material particulars,\n\n     except\n\n     Post     of\n                   placement\n\n                     Vice\n                            ig        of     clauses by     different\n\n                                 President & Joint Secretary is\n                                                                                numbers.\n\n                                                                                     a    new\n                          \n     condition,           Rule making powers are also added.                         There\n\n<\/pre>\n
     should not be a quarrel on these facts and figures.\n<\/p>\n
     12.                        As     per    the old scheme, tenure                 of     5<\/p>\n
     managing        committee members is 3 years while the total<\/p>\n
     general        body strength is only 12.                 The change             report<\/p>\n
     of     1995     came to be rejected.               Another change               report<\/p>\n
     309\/1999        also       came to be rejected on 23.8.2002.                          On<\/p>\n
     21.6.2005           managing          committee was elected and                change<\/p>\n
     report was submitted on 3.8.2005 which also came to be<\/p>\n
     rejected on 9.2.2007.\n<\/p>\n
     13.                        The         learned         Assistant            Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner and the learned Additional District Judge<\/p>\n
     have     scanned           the evidence and documents and were                        of<\/p>\n
     the     considered          opinion        that new      scheme          only       will<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>
\n                      (9)<\/span>
\n     provide new life to the virtual deadwood of the trust.\n<\/p>\n
     Thus,     there        was    subjective     satisfaction            of      the<\/p>\n
     Assistant Charity Commissioner to accept new scheme.\n<\/p>\n
     14.                     The     evidence and, particularly, cross<\/p>\n
     examination of Bhanudas, indeed, expose the bona fides<\/p>\n
     and     his    credentials           to    manage    the      Trust.         The<\/p>\n
     allegations       are not one or two but numerous, followed<\/p>\n
     years together, with the same pattern,<\/p>\n
                (a) The meeting of managing                     committee         and
\n                general body was not called.\n<\/p>\n
                (b) Accounts are not submitted before general
\n                body, nor approved.\n<\/p>\n
                (c) Audit report not submitted to the office.\n<\/p>\n
                (d) The Bank Account of Trust is to be<\/p>\n
                operated   by President    and Treasurer but
\n                Bhanudas, ignoring the same, operated Bank
\n                account with joint signature of Principal.\n<\/p>\n
                (e) Without prior sanction from Assistant
\n                Charity Commissioner, Metadoor of Trust was<\/p>\n
                sold, that too, without inviting tender or
\n                soliciting the maximum prospective bidders.\n<\/p>\n
                (f) The details of Trust property not included
\n                in the Record.\n<\/p>\n
                (g) Purchase of new school Bus was                      obviously<\/p>\n
                in violation of Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                (h) Bus fare collected are not accounted.\n<\/p>\n
                (i) The contribution to employees                       fund      and
\n                their deduction is not accounted.\n<\/p>\n
     15.                     The     Managing    Committee has acted                in<\/p>\n
     defiance      to bye-laws of Trust.           The Trust property is<\/p>\n
     mortgaged         as         could    be     seen     in         resolution<\/p>\n
     dt.19.10.2004,          without      permission      and      approval         of<\/p>\n
     Charity     Commissioner.            There is violation of            Section<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>
\n                      (10)<\/span>
\n     36A of the Act while raising loan.\n<\/p>\n
     16.                        The    Trust,    due     to the            omission         of<\/p>\n
     Trustees,        has invited penal notice from the office of<\/p>\n
     Employees Provident Fund as, the deposit\/deductions of<\/p>\n
     salary     are        not accounted and institute                     was     sealed.\n<\/p>\n
     The    Rules         framed       by    Trust     are      inconsistent             with<\/p>\n
     provisions of the Act.                 Though death of Trustees could<\/p>\n
     have     been        taken       due    care to     infuse          new      trustee,<\/p>\n
     deliberately,           a     system of anarchy and                 authoritative<\/p>\n
     approach is surfacing, to circumvent the Rules and the<\/p>\n
     very      Bombay           Public      Trusts      Act.           A       legitimate<\/p>\n
     impression is generated that Bhanudas has arrogated to<\/p>\n
     himself all the authority and treated the Trust as his<\/p>\n
     proprietary concern.\n<\/p>\n
     17.                        The    old scheme required a quorum                       for<\/p>\n
     smooth     administration of Trust and it is now the                                 one<\/p>\n
     man    show      of appellant Bhanudas.                  The Court will              not<\/p>\n
     encourage        such       situation to prevail, detrimental                          to<\/p>\n
     the    object         and     interest of        trust.           The       requisite<\/p>\n
     quorum     is        not     available      to     facilitate            conducting<\/p>\n
     business        of     Trust legitimately.               The      term       ‘Quorum”\n<\/p>\n
     means,     “such a number of the members of a body as                                  is<\/p>\n
     competent to transact business in the absence of other<\/p>\n
     members”.            The appellant Bhanudas is figuring even in<\/p>\n
     the    first         Board of Trustees, of new scheme.                          Taking<\/p>\n
     survey     of        all these events, the               logical         conclusion<\/p>\n
     would rest in holding that the guidelines do encourage<\/p>\n
     to     accept a new scheme, if old scheme has failed                                 and<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>
\n                              (11)<\/span>
\n     is    crippled.         Since Bhanudas is the              sole        surviving<\/p>\n
     trustee,        his     removal will not provide an impetus                       to<\/p>\n
     the    existing position, as it would inihibit the Trust<\/p>\n
     itself.         The     substantial questions are                answered         as<\/p>\n
     under,     holding          that there is no bar in              the     Charity<\/p>\n
     Commissioner          for framing a new scheme when already                         a<\/p>\n
     scheme     is     in     existence and that, in              the       event      of<\/p>\n
     breach     committed by the trustee, it is not the remedy<\/p>\n
     of    removal         alone,    the     remedy     of    modification             of<\/p>\n
     existing scheme is available.\n<\/p>\n
                (a)<\/p>\n
                             The appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                (b)          The     parties      to bear the expenses                 of<\/p>\n
                litigation, without debiting to the Trust.\n<\/p>\n
                (c)          The      learned            Assistant            Charity<\/p>\n
                Commissioner          will     take    action in           terms       of<\/p>\n
                Bombay       Public Trusts Act against the                    Trustee<\/p>\n
                within       a     period    of       six    months         and     send<\/p>\n
                compliance report to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                (d)          Civil     Application           No.3138\/2008,             is<\/p>\n
                rejected.           C.A.     No.1807\/2009, disposed                  of.\n<\/p>\n
                Ad interim relief vacated.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
\n                                                      J )<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>
\n                         (12)<\/span>
\n                …\n<\/p>\n
     (agp:u\/sa207-08)<\/p>\n
                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:23:08 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009 Bench: K.U. Chandiwal (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.207 OF 2008 Date of decision: 3\/3\/2009 For approval and signature HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers ] Yes\/No may […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200016","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-27T07:07:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T07:07:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1985,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-27T07:07:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-27T07:07:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T07:07:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009"},"wordCount":1985,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009","name":"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-27T07:07:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhanudas-vs-the-joint-charity-commissioner-on-3-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhanudas vs The Joint Charity Commissioner on 3 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200016","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200016"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200016\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}