Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Indian Trust Act, 1882

15 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

GOSAR FAMILY TRUST, JAMNAGAR ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1995 INSC 31128 April 1995Dismissed

The Gosar Family Trust was a private discretionary trust with two classes of beneficiaries: the first class could receive the trust's annual income, while the second class would receive the corpus and any accumulated income upon termination. The trustees had absolute discretion to distribute or retain income and could

VIDYODAYA TRUSTversusMOHAN PRASAD R & ORS.

2008 INSC 26627 February 2008Case Allowed

The Vidyodaya Trust filed a petition under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 challenging the administration of the trust, which was dismissed by the trial court. The respondents then sought leave to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was granted by the district court without

AHMED ABDULLA AHMED AL GHURAIR (THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. BARTHOLOMEW KAMYA) & ANR.versusSTAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

2018 INSC 110026 November 2018Dismissed

The plaintiffs, Dubai nationals and shareholders of a Dubai‑incorporated company (Defendant No.2), filed a derivative suit in the Madras High Court seeking a declaration that Defendant No.2 held the beneficial interest in 6.16% of the shares of an Indian company (Defendant No.1) that were registered in the names of oth

VIDYODAYA TRUST AND ORS.versusMR. MOHAN PRASAD R AND ORS.

2006 INSC 55725 August 2006Disposed off

The respondents filed a suit under Section 34 of the Trust Act seeking management of Vidyodaya Trust, and the District Court allowed the suit by granting leave under Section 92 of the CPC after deciding a preliminary issue on its maintainability. The appellants challenged this order, filing a revision petition under Se

RUKMINI AMMA & ORS.versusRAJESWARY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2013 INSC 19222 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants held a usufructuary mortgage over land mortgaged by the respondents in 1958, 1959 and 1961. While the mortgage subsisted, the property was attached under the Revenue Recovery Act for the mortgagor's agricultural income tax arrears and sold at public auction, the highest bid being the son of the mortgagee

BHIM SINGH &.ANR.versusKAN SINGH

1979 INSC 27721 December 1979Case Partly allowed

The case concerned a suit for possession of a house in Bikaner, claimed by Bhim Singh and Himmat Singh (plaintiffs) on the basis of a patta issued in their names, while the defendant Kan Singh asserted ownership as a surviving coparcener and alleged the transaction was benami. The trial court held the plaintiffs were o

HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD.versusAWAZ & ORS.

2024 INSC 104419 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a consumer complaint filed by two trusts on behalf of credit‑card users alleging that banks were charging exorbitant interest rates of 36%‑49% p.a., which the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had deemed an unfair trade practice and capped at 30% p.a. The Court held that

SHRI VIMAL KISHOR SHAH & ORS.versusMR. JAYESH DINESH SHAH & ORS.

2016 INSC 60817 August 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants and respondents are beneficiaries of a family trust created by a deed that contains clause 20, which purports to refer any disputes among beneficiaries to arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1996. The respondents filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199

P V. SANAKARA KURUPversusLEELAVATHY NAMBIAR

1994 INSC 32016 August 1994Dismissed

The petition challenged a Kerala High Court judgment that had set aside earlier findings that the petitioner, P.V. Sankara Kurup, was merely an agent and holder of a power of attorney for the respondent, Leelavathy Nambiar, and had purchased a Thavazhy property in his own name using the respondent’s funds. The central

FERRO ALLOYS CORPN. LTD. AND ORS.versusA.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS

1993 INSC 15515 April 1993Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered multiple writ petitions filed by industrial consumers, including Ferro Alloys Corp., challenging the terms of electricity supply imposed by various State Electricity Boards. The issues revolved around the validity of Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the reasonableness of a

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONERversusSHIV KUMAR JOSHI

1999 INSC 55814 December 1999Dismissed

Shiv Kumar Joshi, a member of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, complained before the District Consumer Forum that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner delayed payment of his provident fund, alleging deficiency in service. The Commissioner appealed, arguing that the scheme was not a "service" under the Consumer

ROYAL MEDICAL TRUST AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

2017 INSC 88912 September 2017Disposed off

The Royal Medical Trust, which runs Kerala Medical College, applied for a Letter of Permission (LOP) to admit 150 MBBS students for the 2017‑18 academic year. After a surprise inspection by the Medical Council of India (MCI) revealed several deficiencies, the Central Government barred the college from admissions and au

NAMDEV SHRIPATI NALEversusBAPU GANAPATI JAGTAP AND ANR.

1997 INSC 26111 March 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, N.S. Nale, sought redemption of a possessory mortgage on an inam land that had been resumed and regranted under the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950. The mortgagee, Bapu Ganpati Jagtap, failed to pay the statutory occupancy price required for regrant, yet obtained the regrant by p

ANURAG KRISHNA SINHAversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

2026 INSC 21910 March 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a descendant and trustee of the Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library, challenged the Bihar State Legislature's 2015 Act that compulsorily acquired the Institute and dissolved its trust. The High Court had upheld the Act, but the Supreme Court examined whether the legislation wa

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search