NIKET MEHTA v. LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST, THROUGH CHARU MEHTA
Charity Commissioner's Consent Mandatory for Suits Against Trustees Under MPT Act: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Non-Compliance in Recovery Suit.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:23200
Decision Date: 03-12-2025
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act); Section 50 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950; Section 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950; Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Case Brief
- Facts: The Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (Plaintiff No. 1), through its trustees, filed a suit against Niket Mehta (Defendant) for recovery of Rs. 17,20,88,896/-. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant, an erstwhile trustee, illegally occupied Trust properties (Flat No. 7 and an office space) from 2007 to 2015 and 2007 to 2009 respectively, seeking compensation for this unauthorized occupation. The Defendant filed an application for rejection of the suit plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), arguing that the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act) because the Plaintiffs failed to obtain the Charity Commissioner's consent as required by Sections 50 and 51 of the MPT Act.
- Procedural Posture: The Defendant filed an Interim Application seeking rejection of the Suit plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court of Bombay is considering this application.
- Issue: Is the consent of the Charity Commissioner mandatory under Sections 50 and 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, before filing a suit for recovery of compensation against an erstwhile trustee for allegedly illegally occupying trust properties, when the plaint and supporting documents describe the defendant as a trustee?
- Holding: Yes, the consent of the Charity Commissioner is mandatory. The High Court allowed the Defendant's Interim Application and rejected the Suit plaint.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Plaintiffs themselves described the Defendant as a Trustee/permanent Trustee/erstwhile Trustee in the Suit plaint and supporting documents. The suit was for recovery of compensation from the Defendant in his capacity as an erstwhile Trustee for occupying the suit properties. Given these facts, the provisions of Sections 50 and 51 of the MPT Act apply, requiring the Charity Commissioner's consent before filing the suit. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendant was a "rank trespasser" was inconsistent with their own pleadings and evidence. The Court stated, "Once Plaintiffs have described the Defendant as a Trustee / permanent Trustee in the Suit plaint itself as also on the basis of the supporting documents referred to and relied upon in the Suit plaint, there can be no manner of doubt that the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs is on behalf of Plaintiff No.1 – Trust for recovery of compensation from Defendant in his capacity as the erstwhile Trustee of Plaintiff No.1 Trust and he having occupied the suit properties." Because the Charity Commissioner's consent was not obtained, the suit was deemed not maintainable.