INDIAN TRUSTS ACT, 1882

Facts: Facts: The assessee is a private discretionary trust constituted under a deed of settlement and question is raised by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the questions raised by the assessee-trust substantially involve the same issue, that is to say, the validity of donation of certain shares made by the trustees of the assessee-trust and questiobn of Commissioner of Income Tax involves the issue of assessability of the income and accretions arising out of the said donated shares in the hands of the assessee-trust after the date of donation.

Held: In the instant case, judged in the light of the reality of the situation and the conduct of the parties, the income from the said shares after the date of the donation did not, at any time, really accrue to nor was it earned or received by the assessee-trust. If the said donation is assumed to be void which we have already held is not so, the dividend thereon, even when received by the said Birla Jankalyan Trust, would be assessable to Income Tax in the hands of the assessee unless, on the principles of real income such dividend on the said shares having been lawfully earned and received by the donee-trust and not by the assessee-trust is held not to be includible in the hands of the assessee-trust.

Facts: Facts: The assessee is a private discretionary trust constituted under a deed of settlement and question is raised by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the questions raised by the assessee-trust substantially involve the same issue, that is to say, the validity of donation of certain shares made by the trustees of the assessee-trust and questiobn of Commissioner of Income Tax involves the issue of assessability of the income and accretions arising out of the said donated shares in the hands of the assessee-trust after the date of donation.

Held: In the instant case, judged in the light of the reality of the situation and the conduct of the parties, the income from the said shares after the date of the donation did not, at any time, really accrue to nor was it earned or received by the assessee-trust. If the said donation is assumed to be void which we have already held is not so, the dividend thereon, even when received by the said Birla Jankalyan Trust, would be assessable to Income Tax in the hands of the assessee unless, on the principles of real income such dividend on the said shares having been lawfully earned and received by the donee-trust and not by the assessee-trust is held not to be includible in the hands of the assessee-trust.

Facts: The affidavit which has been filed by Ashwin Mehta before the Special Court, it has been stated that M/s Canbank Financial Services Ltd. owes substantial sums and Canbank Financial Services Ltd. does not dispute the balances in the various accounts of Ashwin Mehta as on the date he was notified under the Special Courts Act and in as much as large amounts of money were receivable by Mr Harshad Mehta from Canbank Financial Services Ltd. against which Ashwin Mehta claims a set-off. 4. In the application which was filed before the Special Court by the appellant.

Held: It is thus clear that Respondent No. 5 could not have purchased the CANCIGO's nor could the beneficial interest in the CANCIGO's be transferred to them. Respondent No. 5 have got thus no right, title or interest in the CANCIGO's and cannot be allowed to hold on to them. This is particularly so as they have now given up their claim that these were deposited with them, as and by way of security. The claim, if any, of Respondent No. 5, against the 1st Respondent, is a mere money claim. The CANCIGO's remain the property of Respondent No. 1 and stand attached. They must be handed over by Respondent No. 5 to the Custodian. It must be mentioned that even if the 5th Respondent had claimed that the CANCIGO's were deposited with them as security for repayment of debts due by the 1st Respondent, the terms of issue would still have prevented any interest being created in their favour and so for the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. These appeals are allowed.

Facts: The affidavit which has been filed by Ashwin Mehta before the Special Court, it has been stated that M/s Canbank Financial Services Ltd. owes substantial sums and Canbank Financial Services Ltd. does not dispute the balances in the various accounts of Ashwin Mehta as on the date he was notified under the Special Courts Act and in as much as large amounts of money were receivable by Mr Harshad Mehta from Canbank Financial Services Ltd. against which Ashwin Mehta claims a set-off. 4. In the application which was filed before the Special Court by the appellant.

Held: It is thus clear that Respondent No. 5 could not have purchased the CANCIGO's nor could the beneficial interest in the CANCIGO's be transferred to them. Respondent No. 5 have got thus no right, title or interest in the CANCIGO's and cannot be allowed to hold on to them. This is particularly so as they have now given up their claim that these were deposited with them, as and by way of security. The claim, if any, of Respondent No. 5, against the 1st Respondent, is a mere money claim. The CANCIGO's remain the property of Respondent No. 1 and stand attached. They must be handed over by Respondent No. 5 to the Custodian. It must be mentioned that even if the 5th Respondent had claimed that the CANCIGO's were deposited with them as security for repayment of debts due by the 1st Respondent, the terms of issue would still have prevented any interest being created in their favour and so for the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. These appeals are allowed.

Facts: The affidavit which has been filed by Ashwin Mehta before the Special Court, it has been stated that M/s Canbank Financial Services Ltd. owes substantial sums and Canbank Financial Services Ltd. does not dispute the balances in the various accounts of Ashwin Mehta as on the date he was notified under the Special Courts Act and in as much as large amounts of money were receivable by Mr Harshad Mehta from Canbank Financial Services Ltd. against which Ashwin Mehta claims a set-off. 4. In the application which was filed before the Special Court by the appellant.

Held: It is thus clear that Respondent No. 5 could not have purchased the CANCIGO's nor could the beneficial interest in the CANCIGO's be transferred to them. Respondent No. 5 have got thus no right, title or interest in the CANCIGO's and cannot be allowed to hold on to them. This is particularly so as they have now given up their claim that these were deposited with them, as and by way of security. The claim, if any, of Respondent No. 5, against the 1st Respondent, is a mere money claim. The CANCIGO's remain the property of Respondent No. 1 and stand attached. They must be handed over by Respondent No. 5 to the Custodian. It must be mentioned that even if the 5th Respondent had claimed that the CANCIGO's were deposited with them as security for repayment of debts due by the 1st Respondent, the terms of issue would still have prevented any interest being created in their favour and so for the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. These appeals are allowed.

Facts: Some of these offices. under this act, paragana and kulkarni watans were abolished and watan lands were resumed to 2 the government, subject to section 4. it is needless to observe that the suit land, being watan property, was also resumed to the government subject to section 4, which empowered the holder of the watan to seek re-grant of the land upon payment of the requisite occupancy price within prescribed period notably, the original watandar did not seek re-grant of the suit land. however, relying on a government resolution permitting persons in actual possession of the watan lands to seek re-grant, the mortgagee paid the requisite occupancy price and obtained a re-grant of the suit land in.

Held: The right of redemption under a mortgage deed can come to an end or be extinguished only by a process known to law, i.e., either by way of a contract between the parties to such effect, by a merger, or by a statutory provision that debars the mortgagor from redeeming the mortgage. A mortgagee who has entered into possession of the mortgaged property will have to give up such possession when a suit for redemption is filed, unless he is able to establish that the right of redemption has come to an end as per law. This emanates from the legal principle applicable to all mortgages, “Once a mortgage, always a mortgage”. The right of redemption of a mortgagor is not extinguished by virtue of re-grant in favour of the mortgagee. Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 casts a clear obligation on the mortgagee to hold any right acquired by him in the mortgaged property for the benefit of the mortgagor, as he is seen to be acting in a fiduciary capacity in respect of such transactions. Therefore, the advantage derived by the mortgagee by way of the re-grant must be surrendered to the benefit of the mortgagor, subject to the payment of the expenses incurred by them in securing the re-grant.

Facts: Some of these offices. under this act, paragana and kulkarni watans were abolished and watan lands were resumed to 2 the government, subject to section 4. it is needless to observe that the suit land, being watan property, was also resumed to the government subject to section 4, which empowered the holder of the watan to seek re-grant of the land upon payment of the requisite occupancy price within prescribed period notably, the original watandar did not seek re-grant of the suit land. however, relying on a government resolution permitting persons in actual possession of the watan lands to seek re-grant, the mortgagee paid the requisite occupancy price and obtained a re-grant of the suit land in.

Held: The right of redemption under a mortgage deed can come to an end or be extinguished only by a process known to law, i.e., either by way of a contract between the parties to such effect, by a merger, or by a statutory provision that debars the mortgagor from redeeming the mortgage. A mortgagee who has entered into possession of the mortgaged property will have to give up such possession when a suit for redemption is filed, unless he is able to establish that the right of redemption has come to an end as per law. This emanates from the legal principle applicable to all mortgages, "Once a mortgage, always a mortgage". The right of redemption of a mortgagor is not extinguished by virtue of re-grant in favour of the mortgagee. Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 casts a clear obligation on the mortgagee to hold any right acquired by him in the mortgaged property for the benefit of the mortgagor, as he is seen to be acting in a fiduciary capacity in respect of such transactions. Therefore, the advantage derived by the mortgagee by way of the re-grant must be surrendered to the benefit of the mortgagor, subject to the payment of the expenses incurred by them in securing the re-grant.

Facts: One Shri Dwarkadas Laxmichand Modi executed a family Trust Deed on 06.04.1983 forming a trust in favour of six minors, including Vimal Kishor Shah and Jayesh Dinesh Shah. Clause 20 of the Trust Deed provided that if any dispute arise then it would be resolved in pursuance of the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, and the decision of the arbitrators would be binding on the parties to the arbitration. But soon after the formation of the trust, differences cropped up between the beneficiaries and one of the trustees resigned from the trusteeship.

Held: Supreme Court opined that there was no valid arbitration agreement.Since the conditions were not met as there was no agreement and the arbitration clause was inserted unilaterally by the “settlor” so the requirements of Section 2(b) and 2(h) read with Section 7 were not fulfilled. Further, the Trusts Act also conferred jurisdiction on Civil Courts, for adjudication in the matter of trusts. Though there was no express bar towards the Arbitration Act, the Court opined that there was an implied bar of exclusion of the applicability of the Arbitration Act for deciding the disputes relating to trusts through private arbitration as the remedies provided in the Trusts Act were adequate and sufficient.

Facts: The applications is permitted to the Appellants to file suit Under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The District and Sessions Judge observed that the object of dedication of the property shall decide the nature of it being considered a trust. then the Respondents has filed civil revision Under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure before against the decesion of District and Sessions Judge and therefore after the high court judgement against them, the Appellants have appealed to the court.

Held: The Appellants are granted liberty to move appropriate application in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. Civil Courts having jurisdiction to entertain any suit in this country are expected to carefully examine applications.