This laboured explanation also demonstrates the nominal nature of the trust deed. 6,000 returned by Babulal. This extract does not help either party. were prepared in order to place them before the Chairperson/President of NCLAT/NCLT on their appointment for finalization as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. D-3 is the deposition of Govindprasad in Civil Suit No. The -trustees demanded Rs. Summons was served on Tuljabai, the wife of Ganeshprasad and mother of Rukhmabai, for producing the account books of the Lala brothers from the year 1897 to 1928, but no accounts were produced except Ex.

This conduct indicates that no distinction was made between the trust property and his own property, and that, though a registered document had been executed, he was able to put to an end to the trust when he chose to do so. D-30 is the copy of the proceedings from the Proceeding Book filed by the trustees in Civil Suit No. Secondly, the trust deed itself refers to the earlier deeds of relinquishment and we have already held that the said two deeds were colourable transactions.

These three documents show the extensive business the members of the family were doing-in liquor. Therein he- describes how the trust deed was implemented and how it came to an end. It is also mentioned that following draft Rules have already been prepared in consultation with the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law firms in Supreme Cour of Indiat: (i) NCLAT (Salaries, Allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and other Members) Rules, 2014, (ii) NCLT (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of President and other Members) Rules, 2013.

382 of 1958, arising out of the judgment and order dated August 6, 1958, of the Election Tribunal, Kanpur, in Election Petition No. It is also stated that out of the total cost of Rs. 5,000 was given to Babulal by the trustees as loan. Whatever might be the reason, the said document shows that the property was taken back by Govindprasad and there is nothing on record to show that any benefit from the trust reached the hands of either Chandanlal or Rukhmabai.

P-10 is an agreement executed by Naravanrao Govindrao Mahajan in favour of the Lala brothers, whereunder Narayanrao Govindrao Mahajan agreed to reconvey the property conveyed to him. D-22, which is an extract from the accounts of Ganeshprasad covering a period of only one month of the year 1927. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 10, 1958, of the Allahabad High Supreme Court of India Lawyer, in First Appeal No. This shows that Kasheo Rao Laxman Rao was one of the close associates of the members of the family in executing the fraudulent documents.

This evidence proves that the trust was put to an end even before the completion of the building, and Govindprasad completed the construction. Therein Govindprasad says that Chandanlal and Rukmabai became majors and, though he wanted to make over the building to them, they did not like to take it and agreed to have it left with him so long as he was alive and that, as Davidin left the place, Gajulal passed away, Mahadeo had gone to another district for a service and Kasheo Rao was unwilling to take further responsibility, he had taken over the building according to the wishes of his nephew and niece.

15,000 was utilised for building the house and Rs. The said three documents were registered on June 15, 1915, though they were all purported to have been executed on different dates. 8,85,14,000/- for development of the acquired land, an amount of Rs. 10,000 conveying some property at Kamptee. He says that for building the house the site opposite Cotton Market at Nagpur was acquired from Babulal, and Rs. 10,000 out of the sum of Rs. Before we part, we must mention that the affidavit dated 07.

D-35 is a Power of Attorney dated January 26, 1921, executed by Rukhmabai and Chandanlal in favour of Govindprasad. 5,000 more from him, but he gave them only Rs. P-72 dated September 9, 1913, the General Power of Attorney, shows that two of the trustees, Kasheo Rao Laxman Rao and Davidin were the family agents of the Lala brothers. On June 20, 1915, Narayanrao Govindrao Mahajan executed three documents, Exs. 2,500 was given to them by Sheoshankar, the 275 husband of the appellant.

In the written submissions of the GDA, it is stated that subsequent to the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act Advocate in Supreme Court of India the month of December, 2004, award has been made and out of the 400 land owners more than 370 have already received compensation. Mahadeo is the brother- in-law of Babulal, a servant of Ganeshprasad, who is the father of Rukhmabai, the appellant. The trustees appointed were the agents of the family. The fact that most of the trustees were either the agents or the servants of the family is also a circumstance, though not.

2015 is filed on behalf of the respondents mentioning therein the steps that have been taken till date towards setting up of NCLT and NCLAT. In that document both of them, who had become majors declared that they could not manage the property and therefore they appointed Govindprasad as their agent and authorized him to manage the property and act for them in the courts. Draft Recruitment Rules for the supporting staff were also prepared in consultation with Legislative Department, Ministry of Law.

The trust was dissolved in 1921 and after that he commenced to construct the second storey and completed it with a sum of Rs. conclusive, against the version of the appellant. It is pointed out that the approval for creation of one post of Chairperson and five posts of Members of NCLAT as well as one post of President and 62 posts of Members of NCLT and two posts of Registrar one each for NCLT and NCLAT and one post of Secretary, NCLT was obtained and the approval was also obtained for creation of 246 posts of supporting staff of NCLT and NCLAT.

What is more, the trust comes to an abrupt end. Indeed, the learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact that the family was in a position to give Govindprasad the amount covered by the trust deed and that spent for the con- struction of the building. Two minor members of the family were selected for the bequest; though ordinarily it may not have any significance, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, this fits in the general scheme of fraud perpetrated by the family.

If Govindprasad had a business of his own, he must have had accounts, but no such accounts were forthcoming. P-38 dated October 6, 1914, indicates that Kasheo Rao Laxman Rao, one of the trustees, attested the said document whereunder Narayanrao Govindrao Mahajan declared that the, mortgage deed executed in his favour by the Lala brothers was a nominal transaction. If so, the question is whether the appellant has proved that Govindprasad paid the said amounts from and out of his self-acquisitions.

2,500 and another sum of Rs. These Rules cover provisions with regard to manner of functioning of NCLT/NCLAT; manner in which applications for various approvals shall be made by applicants and approved; and specific procedural requirements with regard to applications/matters relating to compromises/arrangements/ amalgamations; It is further mentioned that draft Rules with regard to manner of functioning of NCLT/NCLAT etc.