Whether application for execution of decree which is not signed by trustees of charitable trust is maintainable?

 It is also argued that the execution proceedings ought to have been signed by all the trustees and that the Secretary of the trust cannot represent the trust to file execution proceedings. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.

7. So far as the question as to who should sign the execution proceedings and who should verify the execution proceedings is concerned, the provisions of Order 21, Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are most relevant. The relevant provision reads as under :

"Written application-- (2) Save as otherwise provided by Sub-rule (1), every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars."

This provision clearly means that it is not necessary that every time only the decree holder must file execution proceedings. It can be filed by any other person who happens to be acquainted with the facts of the case and the Court happens to be satisfied that the person so signing the execution proceedings is acquainted with the facts of the case. Here, the Secretary of the trust has signed the execution proceedings and it is very clear from the order passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes that he has not raised any doubt about the acquaintance of the Secretary with the facts of the case. So to the satisfaction of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, the execution proceedings is rightly presented.

8. No doubt, Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 prohibits the trusts from delegating the powers, but the explanation to Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 reads as follows :

"The appointment of an attorney or proxy to do an act merely ministerial and involving no independent discretion is not a delegation within the meaning of this section."

It means that ministerial acts can be performed by a person who is authorized by the trustees to do the needful. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that no such authorization is filed by the Secretary before the Court to show that he can sign the execution petition on behalf of the trust. However, when the Court was satisfied that the Secretary was acquainted with the facts of the case and could file proceedings, I do not think that there is any substance in this contention. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Writ Petn. No. 2285 of 1997

Decided On: 21.06.2001

 Monalisa Rohinton Irani  Vs. Naval H. Tata and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Barde, J.

Print Page

Whether proxy land acquisition is permissible?

The acquisition of property of respondent No. 5 by proxy
acquisition where not only the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
would be invoked but even the cost of acquisition and publication will
be paid by some other third agency would in fact mean depriving the
respondent No. 5 of his property save and except by authority of law,
which would be contrary to the letter and spirit of Article 300 A of
Constitution of India.
CWP No. 11334 of 2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Date of decision: 17.4.2015.
Prakash chand
Vs.
State of H.P. & ors.
Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Citation; AIR 2015 HP42

Print Page

What are rights and duties of proxy of shareholder under company law?

A proxy is defined by Lord Hanworth M. R. in 'Cousins v. International Brick Co.', (1931) 2 Ch. 90 as "a person representative of the shareholder who may be described as his agent to carry out a course which the shareholder himself has decided upon" and the Lord Justice in the same case defined a proxy as an agent of the shareholder who, as between himself and the principal, was not entitled to act contrary to his instructions in the matter. It cannot therefore be seriously disputed that the relationship brought about between the shareholder and his proxy is that of a principal and agent. The argument of the respondents is that unless the power of revocation is expressly conferred by the Articles under which a right of voting by proxy is recognised, the Power of revocation does not exist and that the contract creating the agency is exhaustive of the rights and duties of the proxy. This contention proceeds upon a wrong view of the incidents of a contract of agency. When once the relationship of principal and agent is created by contract, the incidents of that contract of agency are govern-ed and have to be determined by applying the law of contracts. In India such law is to be found in the Contract Act.

Madras High Court

S. Rm. S.T. Narayana Chettiar And ... vs The Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd. And ... on 7 September, 1950

Citations: AIR 1952 Mad 515, 1951 21 CompCas 351 Mad, (1952) IMLJ 18

Bench: S Rao, C Reddi

Print Page