Rajinder Jain & Ors vs State & Ors

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Orders Decided May 05, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1274912

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1274912
Court: Delhi Orders High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan
Decided On: May 05, 2026
Case Number: CS(OS)/153/2016
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajinder Jain & Ors

Advocate Mr. Naresh Thanai, Ms. Khushboo Singh

Respondent

State & Ors

Advocate Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Mr. Ashok Sabharwal, Mr. Shobhit Sabharwal, Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar

Excerpt

.....through: mr. naresh thanai and ms. khushboo singh, advs.versusstate & ors .....defendants through: mr. piyush kant jain, mr. ashok sabharwal and mr. shobhit sabharwal, advs. for d-2. mr. udaibir singh kochar, adv. for d-3.coram:hon'ble mr. justice avneesh jhinganorder% 05.05.20261. the present suit is filed under section 92 of the code of civilprocedure, 1908 with the following prayer: “a) remove defendant no. 2 as pradhan trustee of the trust namely, shri bashi ram viro devi jain charitable trust; b) or alternatively, restrain defendant no.2 from writing letters to bank, authority or any other organization or to cause interference in functioning/activities of trust in any manner whatsoever, except by way of decisions taken unanimously or with the majority of existing trustees namely, plaintiff’s and defendant no.3 of the trust.”2. as a consequence of letters written by defendant no. 2 to the banks with regard to the operation of the bank accounts, interim orders were passed directing a working solution so that the functioning of the trust is not affected during the pendency of the suit.3. defendant no. 2 expired during the pendency of the suit. the application filed by wife of the deceased for impleadment was withdrawn.4. considering that the cause of action for the prayer in suit for removalof defendant no. 2 as pradhan trustee of the trust, namely shri bashi ram viro devi jain trust does not survive upon the death of defendant no. 2, no adjudication of the issues framed is required and have been rendered academic.5. the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that interim orders should be made absolute has no merit.6. the suit is dismissed.7. needless to say that the interim orders passed during the pendency of the suit no longer survive and the trust has to run as per the trust deed and the statutory provisions. avneesh jhingan, j may 5, 2026/pa

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 153/2016, I.A. 250/2024, I.A. 10054/2024, I.A. 13331/2025, I.A. 15405/2025 & I.A. 8069/2026 RAJINDER JAIN & ORS .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Naresh Thanai and Ms. Khushboo Singh, Advs.
versus
STATE & ORS .....Defendants Through: Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Mr. Ashok Sabharwal and Mr. Shobhit Sabharwal, Advs. for D-2. Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

ORDER

% 05.05.2026

1. The present suit is filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 with the following prayer: “a) Remove defendant no. 2 as Pradhan Trustee of the Trust namely, Shri Bashi Ram Viro Devi Jain Charitable Trust; b) or alternatively, restrain defendant no.2 from writing letters to bank, authority or any other organization or to cause interference in functioning/activities of trust in any manner whatsoever, except by way of decisions taken unanimously or with the majority of existing trustees namely, plaintiff’s and defendant no.3 of the trust.”

2. As a consequence of letters written by defendant no. 2 to the banks with regard to the operation of the bank accounts, interim orders were passed directing a working solution so that the functioning of the Trust is not affected during the pendency of the suit.

3. Defendant no. 2 expired during the pendency of the suit. The application filed by wife of the deceased for impleadment was withdrawn.

4. Considering that the cause of action for the prayer in suit for removal

of defendant no. 2 as Pradhan Trustee of the Trust, namely Shri Bashi Ram Viro Devi Jain Trust does not survive upon the death of defendant no. 2, no adjudication of the issues framed is required and have been rendered academic.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that interim orders should be made absolute has no merit.

6. The suit is dismissed.

7. Needless to say that the interim orders passed during the pendency of the suit no longer survive and the Trust has to run as per the Trust Deed and the statutory provisions. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J MAY 5, 2026/Pa

Same Court & Year Delhi Orders · 2026 Same Parties Rajinder Jain & Ors vs State & Ors Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan