Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-09-1984
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas241(Bom)
..... absence of respondent no. 3, the court would have been greatly handicapped in this regard. far from making a grievance of it, the pnb, which is a nationalised bank, should have welcomed the opportunity of meeting the allegations made against it in the petition. any aspersion made against the pnb by the petitioner and adverse observation, ..... was confined to the review of activities of a public natures as opposed to those of a purely private or domestic nature and section 31 of the 1981 act (supreme court act, 1981) had not extended that jurisdiction'. though the court had jurisdiction to issue infection where it was just and convenient to do so, it could ..... are empowered to invest the trust funds. in fact, if they do not immediately invest, they are liable to be prosecuted under s. 66 of that act. any such act of investment obviously cannot be void for failure to obtain prior permission of the charity commissioner.91. the learned attorney-general urged that where an enactment merely imposes .....
Tag this Judgment!