Bombay HC seeks replies from other trustees on Rajesh Mehta’s plea against Lilavati trusteeship termination

On February 18, the Bombay HC had ordered that any further action pursuant to the termination decision would be subject to further orders of the court.
At the time, the court had observed that an “arguable case has been made out” by the applicant for issuance of notice “as also to pass urgent ad-interim relief in order to ensure that substantive right of the Plaintiff/Applicant is not trampled irreversibly”.

On Thursday, senior advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Mehta, sought a stay on the two resolutions. He argued that the Bombay HC could intervene even if the respondent trustees were to file a change report before the Charity Commissioner to record changes in trustees, and pressed for a stay on the termination.

‘Decision contrary to trust deed’: Mehta’s lawyer to Bombay HC

Seervai further contended that the impugned decision was contrary to the terms of the trust deed, which did not confer any power to remove a permanent trustee in such a “grotesque” manner without issuing notice to, or granting a hearing to, the applicant before passing the resolutions.

When Justice Jadhav asked whether the trust deed contained any provision permitting removal of a trustee, Seervai replied in the negative. The judge remarked, “All that I have to see is the Trust deed and if there is any power flowing in the trustees to remove.”

Justice Jadhav added that if the applicant failed to persuade the court, an alternative course of action was available by way of an inquiry under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

The Bombay HC will hear the matter next on March 24.