Case Analysis

1. Case Name: Re Barton(deceased)

Citation: [2002] EWHC 264 (Ch)

Facts: The deceased was an English scientist who died domiciled in Texas. His
beneficiaries in England executed a deed of variation, but this would not be
recognised in the law of Texas. The will expressly stated it was subject to the laws of
England. Texan law would override this. 

Issues: Whether the beneficiaries would be able to execute a deed of variation?

Reasoning: The express choice of law was limited to those matters over which the
testator had the opportunity to choose. That did not apply to the trusts created by the
will. However, the convention suggested because of the several remaining
connections with England, that English law applied to the trust. 

Judgement: The court held that the deed of variation is valid.

Cases Referred: Saunders v Vautier

Coclusion: The terms of the Will by which the trust was created, particularly the
reference to charitable trusts under English Law, would have pointed to an implied
choice of English Law.

2. Case Name: Augustus v Permanent Trustee co, (Canberra) Ltd.

Citation: (1971) 124 CLR 245

Facts: The settlor executed a voluntary deed of settlements in the Australian Capital
Territory. He was resident and domiciled in New South Wales. The trusts were in
favour of the settlor’s children and grandchildren; and those who were alive at the
date of the settlement were also domiciled and resident in the New South Wales. The
trustee was a corporation registered in Canberra which was where the funds were paid
over by the settlor. The trust was void for perpetuity under the law of the Australian
Capital Territory, but valid under the of New South Wales.

Issue: Whether the trust would is valid for the perpetuity under the law of Australia n
Capital Territory?

Reasoning: Validity was to be determined by the proper law of the trust and, there
being a clause in the trust deed which was interpreted as a reference to the law of New
South Wales, he upheld the validity of the trust, applying the law of the state.

Judgement: Here the court upheld the validity of the trust, applying the law of the
state.

Coclusion: The validity of the trust, its construction, its effects, and the
administration of the trust is governed under Article 6 and 7.

3. Case Name: Reserve Bank Of India vs Bank Of Credit And Commerce

International (Overseas) Ltd.

Citation: 1993 78 CompCas 207 Bom

Facts: The banking company here involved is a bank incorporated outside India.
Banking company carried on banking and other business on a large scale in Bombay
with the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. The said business is suspended for
the moment. So R.B.I. through an application in the company court appointed State
Bank of India as a provisional Liquidator. S.B.I started giving money to the
depositors.

Issues: Whether the bank which is incorporated outside the jurisdiction can act
as a trustee?
Reasoning: Here the court states that when a bank is incorporated outside India
and wound up in India. As a special deposit for a special purpose had been made
with the bank, therefore, bank would be acting as a trustee of the amount, the
depositor is in the position of a beneficiary.

Coclusion: Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction in personam if the defendant

is within the jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, courts may take action against
trustees if the trust is a foreign trust.

4. Case Name: Nautam Prakash DGSVC, Vadtal & Ors vs K.K. Thakkar

Citation: AIR 2006 SC 2075

Facts: The appellant herein is a religious trust. A scheme for management of the
temple of Swami Narain Vadtal and other temples subordinate to it, was framed by
the High Court of Bombay in the year 1922.  The rust has properties in both
Maharashtra and Gujarat. The question of rendering its accounts was probed up the
appellants claimed that the said accounts are cleared in gujarat and that the same is
adhered upon.

Issues: Whether the charity commisioner of the state of Maharashra could excersise
jurisdiction in respect of the tr properties in Gujarat?

Reasoning: The fact that a part of its property is situate in Maharashtra State though
the trust is within Madhya Pradesh State, would not mean that the trust would be
governed partly by the Madhya Pradesh Act and partly by the Bombay Act. Such a
division of the trust and its administration is not contemplated by either of the two
Acts. It is, therefore, clear that the present trust does not fall within the ambit
of Section 28 and is not one of those trusts which can be deemed to be registered
under the Bombay Act. That being so, it is obviously not a trust which fulfils the
second condition of Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
and the appellant cannot be said to be entitled to the certificate under that Section."
Judgement: The jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner, Bombay must be held to
be confined only to the management of the property situate within the State of
Maharashtra and not in relation to the entire trust.

Coclusion: The trust had situs in Gujarat so the court denied on the principle of lex
situs that the commissioner will not have any jurisdiction in said properties. His ambit
will be restricted to Bombay.