Dinshaw Rusi Mehta v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1557

Indian Evidence Act 1872.

S.56: Evidence – Subsequent Events during litigation – Having direct bearing on the issue can be considered by the Court even if it is produced for the first time. [ Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ,S. 36 ]

The appeal arises before the Supreme Court out of the Writ petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court. The brief facts of the issue are that there is one Public and Charitable Trust called the ‘Parsi Lying in Hospital’ (PLIH) located in Fort, Mumbai. PLIH owned a land which had been allotted by the Secretary of state for India, for a period of 99 years by executing an indenture of Lease, for setting up a charitable hospital in Bombay.

In the year 1924, PHIL resolved to transfer the said land to another Public Trust called the ‘Bombay Parsi Punchayat’(BPP) vide High Court Order. Insofar as the management of the Hospital was concerned, one management committee used to look after its day to day management. Some Trustees of BPP were also the Trustees of PLIH.

The Hospital continued for a few years and remained closed for various years for various reasons. The Trust decided to re-start the hospital in collaboration with one company called the ‘Krimson Health Ventures Private Limited’(KHPL), who are expert at running and managing a Hospital.The Trustees applied to the Charity Commissioner, the approval for which was granted to execute the lease deed and the work to be started by KHPL.

The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ petition filed against the approval granted.

The appeal filed before the Supreme Court is against the order of the High Court.

During the pendency of the litigation before the Supreme Court, KHPL, in whose favour the land had been transferred for setting up a new hospital, vide their letter to BPP/PLIH, informed them of the dis-interest of KHPL in continuing the project for the reasons mentioned in the letter.

It was held by the Court that, since, the subsequent events brought to the notice of the Court, have a direct bearing over the controversy involved in the case, they deserve to be taken note of for deciding the appeal before them.