The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea challenging a Bombay High Court order proposing appointment of a committee of administrators to oversee the functioning of Lilavati Hospital Trust..A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh noted that Bombay High Court’s observations in this regard were only prima facie and that no final decision had been taken to appoint the administrators. The Bench noted that the High Court merely asked parties to respond to the proposal. It clarified that the High Court would decide the issue only after considering affidavits and pleadings filed by all parties..When it was argued that the High Court had formed an opinion without a counter-affidavit, the top court observed that the view would have to be treated as prima facie.“Whatever the ultimate decision, you can always challenge it,” the Court said as it declined to interfere at this stage and dismissed the plea..The case is linked to a dispute among the trustees of Lilavati Trust.Considering that the parties were engaged in a bitter litigation in at least 31 matters with serious allegations of misappropriation of funds by trustees and former trustees, a Bench of Bombay High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Ravindra V Ghuge on May 7 observed that the functioning of the Trust appeared to have been seriously hampered.“In view of the fact that the parties are engaged in bitter litigations in at least 31 matters and, as noticed above, there are serious allegations of misappropriation of funds, both before the Division Bench and Single Judge, we have formed an opinion that the functioning of the Trust seems to have been seriously hampered. Therefore, we are proposing to appoint a Committee of the Administrators,” the High Court had said..Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the High Court had made the observation without hearing all parties. It was submitted that only some of the matters listed before the High Court had been heard, but the order referred to all 31 proceedings.The petitioners also argued that proceedings for removal of trustees were already pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act. It was contended that Section 41D of the Act provides a complete code for removal of trustees, including an appellate remedy.The respondents opposed the plea, submitting that there was no reason for the Supreme Court to interfere since the High Court had not granted any final relief. It was argued that the Trust was facing serious governance issues including allegations of siphoning of funds, pending criminal proceedings and income tax proceedings.The petitioners disputed the allegations and submitted that the Trust’s registration had been revived. It was argued that the cancellation order referred to during the High Court proceedings had already been set aside..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Nalin Kohli. .The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi
