Events & Personalities
“‘Status quo’ extended”
"‘Status quo’ extended”
The Charity Commissioner (CC) V. K. Jadhav has extended the "status quo regarding Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) properties” till the date of the next hearing, January 31, 2014. Prior to that date, the lawyers for the four complainants BPP trustees Arnavaz Mistry, Jimmy Mistry, Yazdi Desai and Khojeste Mistree have to take inspection of relevant papers and file their rejoinder to BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta’s application opposing "the relief of modification” of the CC’s order.
The four trustees had requested the CC to relax the status quo order in regard to allocation of flats that had already been unanimously agreed to by all the seven trustees (see "‘Status quo’ extended,” Parsiana, January 21, 2014).
Their advocate Amol Inamdar noted that only the formalities remain for handing over the flats. In some cases advertisements have to be placed in the Parsi Press stating the name and particulars of the allottees and inviting objections, and/or the leave and license agreements have to be drawn up, and/or registered.
"There should be no objection to (granting relief) for minor things,” claimed Inamdar. There was "not a single denial” for allotting the flat. "What I am asking for is already done (these matters) should not be kept in abeyance.”
Referring to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) dismissing the criminal complaint made by the four trustees against Mehta, Inamdar noted the police had not given "any reasons” for rejecting their complaint. They have merely stated "a case had not been made out… The EOW order is always open to further” examination, he argued. There are reports the four trustees intend to move a magistrate to pursue their criminal complaint against Mehta.
The four had alleged Mehta has misappropriated funds, cheated and committed criminal breach of trust in the transfer of premises in Dady House which is owned by the BPP and located in Bora Bazar.
They subsequently moved the CC against Mehta under sections 41A (seeking directions from the CC regarding the charges against Mehta), 41D (to suspend, remove or dismiss a trustee) and 41E (bringing an injunction or staying any alienation of property). BPP trustees Armaity Tirandaz and Muncherji Cama did not join in the complaint.
Mehta’s lawyer K. P. Jadhav noted that of the 70 items regarding property before the BPP, the four trustees’ attention was focused only on one. "They are not speaking about the other 69 matters on the agenda.” He alleged the four trustees were "favoring some of their friends.” Inamdar interjected "I object. Who are the friends?”
Advocate Jadhav alleged the modification application moved by the four trustees was "a biased application… Others are similarly affected but their case is not taken up by the four.”
The four had requested the CC to bar Mehta from having any say in alienation of properties controlled by the Trust during the pendency of the case. Mehta in turn asked that the stay be applicable to all seven trustees of the BPP, to which the CC agreed.
Rather than take up individual applications, the CC said he would prefer "to take up the (entire) matter for final hearing.” He didn’t want any "wastage of my time and energy.”
The Charity Commissioner (CC) V. K. Jadhav has extended the "status quo regarding Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) properties” till the date of the next hearing, January 31, 2014. Prior to that date, the lawyers for the four complainants BPP trustees Arnavaz Mistry, Jimmy Mistry, Yazdi Desai and Khojeste Mistree have to take inspection of relevant papers and file their rejoinder to BPP chairman Dinshaw Mehta’s application opposing "the relief of modification” of the CC’s order.
The four trustees had requested the CC to relax the status quo order in regard to allocation of flats that had already been unanimously agreed to by all the seven trustees (see "‘Status quo’ extended,” Parsiana, January 21, 2014).
Their advocate Amol Inamdar noted that only the formalities remain for handing over the flats. In some cases advertisements have to be placed in the Parsi Press stating the name and particulars of the allottees and inviting objections, and/or the leave and license agreements have to be drawn up, and/or registered.
"There should be no objection to (granting relief) for minor things,” claimed Inamdar. There was "not a single denial” for allotting the flat. "What I am asking for is already done (these matters) should not be kept in abeyance.”
Referring to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) dismissing the criminal complaint made by the four trustees against Mehta, Inamdar noted the police had not given "any reasons” for rejecting their complaint. They have merely stated "a case had not been made out… The EOW order is always open to further” examination, he argued. There are reports the four trustees intend to move a magistrate to pursue their criminal complaint against Mehta.
The four had alleged Mehta has misappropriated funds, cheated and committed criminal breach of trust in the transfer of premises in Dady House which is owned by the BPP and located in Bora Bazar.
They subsequently moved the CC against Mehta under sections 41A (seeking directions from the CC regarding the charges against Mehta), 41D (to suspend, remove or dismiss a trustee) and 41E (bringing an injunction or staying any alienation of property). BPP trustees Armaity Tirandaz and Muncherji Cama did not join in the complaint.
Mehta’s lawyer K. P. Jadhav noted that of the 70 items regarding property before the BPP, the four trustees’ attention was focused only on one. "They are not speaking about the other 69 matters on the agenda.” He alleged the four trustees were "favoring some of their friends.” Inamdar interjected "I object. Who are the friends?”
Advocate Jadhav alleged the modification application moved by the four trustees was "a biased application… Others are similarly affected but their case is not taken up by the four.”
The four had requested the CC to bar Mehta from having any say in alienation of properties controlled by the Trust during the pendency of the case. Mehta in turn asked that the stay be applicable to all seven trustees of the BPP, to which the CC agreed.
Rather than take up individual applications, the CC said he would prefer "to take up the (entire) matter for final hearing.” He didn’t want any "wastage of my time and energy.”
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive