HC rejects Lilavati Trust’s suit against ex-trustee for recovering ₹17 cr

Justice Milind Jadhav rejected the suit primarily on the ground that the trust had filed it without obtaining mandatory consent of the charity commissioner under section 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected a suit filed by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, seeking to recover ₹17.20 crore from former trustee Niket Mehta for occupying a flat and an office in the Lilavati Hospital building for years. Justice Milind Jadhav rejected the suit primarily on the ground that the trust had filed it without obtaining mandatory consent of the charity commissioner under section 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

HC rejects Lilavati Trust’s suit against ex-trustee for recovering ₹17 cr

The trust had approached the high court in December 2024, seeking to recover ₹17.20 crore from Mehta, a former permanent trustee, for using a 2,849-sqft flat on the 12th floor of the hospital building as his family residence for over eight years, from January 2007 to April 2015, and a 360-sqft office for around two years.

Mehta, who served as a permanent trustee from 2001 to 2023, subsequently filed an application seeking rejection of the trust’s suit, contending that the litigation was barred under section 80 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts (MPT) Act, 1950 for want of compliance with statutory mandate.

In response, the trust contended that Mehta was not a validly appointed trustee and was therefore a rank trespasser who illegally utilised the premises for his personal and family use. Since the occupation of the trust properties was illegal, Mehta was liable to pay for the same, the trust said.

The court, however, refused to accept the contention. It noted that the trust itself had mentioned Mehta as a former permanent trustee at several places. Hence, written consent of the charity commissioner was required for the trust to recover the loss allegedly caused by him, as mandated under section 50 of the MTP Act, 1950.

“Once it is prima facie seen from the averments in the suit plaint that plaintiff no. 1 – trust has described defendant (Mehta) as a trustee/ ex-trustee/ erstwhile trustee/ permanent trustee of the trust, then in the same breath, plaintiffs cannot contend that defendant will have to be construed as a rank trespasser,” justice Jadhav said while rejecting the suit.