ASH OK KUMAR KAPUR AND ORS versus ASHOK KHANNA AND ORS

ASH OK KUMAR KAPUR AND ORS versus ASHOK KHANNA AND ORS

Due to the disputed nature of the trust's extinction and pending suits, the High Court was justified in declining to exercise summary jurisdiction under Section 34. Determining whether all beneficiaries are satisfied and trust obligations are fulfilled involves detailed and important questions which cannot be decided summarily. Section 83 is not attracted in these circumstances unless conclusively shown. Exercise of Article 142 jurisdiction is inappropriate in such matters when other remedies exist.

Parties
Appellants: Ashok Kumar Kapur and Ors.; Respondents: Ashok Khanna and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Referred to Larger Bench Due to Difference of Opinion Between Two Judges
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (per S.B. Sinha, J.); Appeal allowed (per Markandey Katju, J.); matter referred to larger Bench due to difference of opinion
Legal Topics
Pension Fund, Extinction of Trusts, Discretion Under Article 142, Administration of Trust Property
Trusts Law Labour Law Constitutional Law Pension Fund Extinction of Trusts Discretion Under Article 142 Administration of Trust Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashok Kumar Kapur and Ors.

Appellants

Ashok Khanna and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Referred to Larger Bench Due to Difference of Opinion Between Two Judges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was right in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and decline directions regarding the surplus pension fund after alleged satisfaction of trust objectives.
  2. 2 Whether Section 34 or Section 83 of the Indian Trusts Act is attracted when the purpose of the trust is alleged to have been fulfilled but the trust property is not fully exhausted.
  3. 3 Whether, after purchase of annuities for beneficiaries, the company is entitled to a refund of surplus trust funds under Section 83 or only upon institution of a suit.

Ratio Decidendi

Due to the disputed nature of the trust's extinction and pending suits, the High Court was justified in declining to exercise summary jurisdiction under Section 34. Determining whether all beneficiaries are satisfied and trust obligations are fulfilled involves detailed and important questions which cannot be decided summarily. Section 83 is not attracted in these circumstances unless conclusively shown. Exercise of Article 142 jurisdiction is inappropriate in such matters when other remedies exist.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (per S.B. Sinha, J.); Appeal allowed (per Markandey Katju, J.); matter referred to larger Bench due to difference of opinion

Orders

  • Matter to be placed before a larger Bench as per order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. No order as to costs.