सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने तय किया: सार्वजनिक चैरिटी पर मुकदमा करने से पहले अदालत का अनुमोदन अनिवार्य

<p>New Delhi: Obtaining the leave of the court is a mandatory precondition for instituting a suit against public charities under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has ruled, holding that a civil court cannot pass any protective or preservatory interim orders while an application for such leave is pending.</p><p>A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan clarified that until leave is granted, there is no validly instituted suit and therefore no jurisdiction to issue interlocutory directions, including the appointment of a receiver. </p><p>“Where a statute provides a specific requirement such as leave under Section 92, the court cannot use its inherent jurisdiction to circumvent that requirement,” the bench observed, underscoring that powers under Section 151 CPC are complementary and cannot override express provisions.</p><p>The court was dealing with an appeal arising from a <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</a> order that had set aside a district court direction appointing an ad hoc committee to manage the day-to-day affairs of the People’s Education Trust in Mandya. </p>.'Court deposits don’t stop interest clock,' Supreme Court seeks uniform rules for such funds. <p>The High Court had held that a suit under Section 92 remains “stillborn” in the absence of leave.</p><p>Rejecting the appellants’ plea that a court seized of a leave application cannot remain a “mute spectator”, the apex court in its judgment on September 18, 2026, said the appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 is contingent on the existence of a validly instituted suit.</p><p>Such an appointment is intrusive and can dislodge the management of a public trust, defeating the very purpose of the leave requirement — protection from vexatious litigation, the court held.</p><p>The bench noted that Section 92 embodies a delicate balance: it acts both as a “protective shield” for public trusts against harassment and as a “remedial sword” enabling interested persons to seek court directions in the larger public interest.</p><p>While ordinary procedure requires notice to the proposed defendants before leave is granted, the court carved out a limited exception. </p><p>“For compelling reasons to be recorded in writing like where facts disclose the necessity of urgent relief, notice prior to the grant of leave may be dispensed with,” it said. </p><p>Even then, courts must exercise utmost caution, and the defendants retain the right to seek revocation of the leave, the bench said.</p><p>Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that no protective interim orders can be passed pending disposal of the leave application under Section 92.</p>

<p>New Delhi: Obtaining the leave of the court is a mandatory precondition for instituting a suit against public charities under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has ruled, holding that a civil court cannot pass any protective or preservatory interim orders while an application for such leave is pending.</p><p>A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan clarified that until leave is granted, there is no validly instituted suit and therefore no jurisdiction to issue interlocutory directions, including the appointment of a receiver. </p><p>“Where a statute provides a specific requirement such as leave under Section 92, the court cannot use its inherent jurisdiction to circumvent that requirement,” the bench observed, underscoring that powers under Section 151 CPC are complementary and cannot override express provisions.</p><p>The court was dealing with an appeal arising from a <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/karnataka-high-court">Karnataka High Court</a> order that had set aside a district court direction appointing an ad hoc committee to manage the day-to-day affairs of the People’s Education Trust in Mandya. </p>.'Court deposits don’t stop interest clock,' Supreme Court seeks uniform rules for such funds. <p>The High Court had held that a suit under Section 92 remains “stillborn” in the absence of leave.</p><p>Rejecting the appellants’ plea that a court seized of a leave application cannot remain a “mute spectator”, the apex court in its judgment on September 18, 2026, said the appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 is contingent on the existence of a validly instituted suit.</p><p>Such an appointment is intrusive and can dislodge the management of a public trust, defeating the very purpose of the leave requirement — protection from vexatious litigation, the court held.</p><p>The bench noted that Section 92 embodies a delicate balance: it acts both as a “protective shield” for public trusts against harassment and as a “remedial sword” enabling interested persons to seek court directions in the larger public interest.</p><p>While ordinary procedure requires notice to the proposed defendants before leave is granted, the court carved out a limited exception. </p><p>“For compelling reasons to be recorded in writing like where facts disclose the necessity of urgent relief, notice prior to the grant of leave may be dispensed with,” it said. </p><p>Even then, courts must exercise utmost caution, and the defendants retain the right to seek revocation of the leave, the bench said.</p><p>Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that no protective interim orders can be passed pending disposal of the leave application under Section 92.</p>

Powered by Nyaya 247 News