|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Article Published in the Express Magazine Dated
March 18, 2001
General Attorney : Rajiv K. Luthra
I am a Trustee of a Charitable Trust registered
under the Bombay Public Trust Act of 1950. The
Board of Trustees has several disputes over trust
matters in various courts. Though I am spending
money from my pocket, my opponents are lavishly
spending trust funds. Are there any laws to
prevent or restrict them from misusing trust
money?
G. M. Ashraff, Surat
As per the general rule, a trustee cannot claim
any compensation for his services unless the Trust
instrument provides for this. Nevertheless, under
section 32 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, when a
Trustee incurs expenses inter-alia while executing
a Trust properly and for the benefit of the Trust
property, he is entitled to reimburse himself to
such expenses. When a Trustee has taken leave of
the court to sue or defend in litigation
considered to be in the interest of the Trust, the
Trustee shall be reimbursed, irrespective of the
results of the action. Where the court does not
grant leave, the costs of litigation will be
reimbursed only if the action was defended or
brought in the interest of the Trust.
From the given facts, it is difficult to ascertain
the subject of the case or whether the other
Trustees are using the Trust money rightly. You
may try to injunct the Trust Board from utilizing
Trust funds by filing a suit for injunction, but
if the Board succeeds in proving that the
litigation and expenses incurred thereto are in
the interest of the Trust, your action may fail.
This situation is for the courts to analyze. In
case the courts are satisfied that the funds are
not being used in the interest of the Trust but
for personal benefits, they may grant injunction.
Further, if you are successful in proving and
satisfying the court that the Board is only using
it for their personal interests, the courts may
allow costs of litigation on the Trustees thereon.
What is the difference between an Attorney
General, a Solicitor General and an Advocate
General? Similarly what is the difference between
an advocate, barrister, solicitor and an attorney?
Sunil S., Pune
These expressions are used in different ways,
depending upon the legal system in use in
different countries. An Attorney General is the
chief law officer of a country. An Attorney
General, whose office has been created by the
Constitution of India, has to have the same
qualifications as a Supreme Court Judge. He gives
legal advice to the Government of India and
performs other legal duties referred and assigned
by the President.
The second highest legal officer in a Government
is the Solicitor General. The Advocate General,
whose office is also created by the Constitution,
advises a State Government in legal matters and
other legal duties referred or assigned to him by
the Governor. The Advocate General is appointed by
order of the Governor and has to have the same
qualifications as a High Court Judge.
Under The Advocates Act, 1961, an Advocate is a
person holding a law degree recognized by the Bar
Council of India and is enrolled with a State Bar
Council. He assists, defends, pleads or prosecutes
for others in legal aspects and before court. The
expressions “Advocate”, "Attorney", "Solicitor"
and “Barrister” mean the same in India, except in
some jurisdictions like Mumbai, where a solicitor
has to pass an exam, although this has no
statutory recognition, the same merely being
recognized by convention.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
