Breach of duty by trustee
Breach of duty by trustee legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Basic right of a beneficiary was to have the trust duly administered in accordance with the provisions of the trust instrument, if any, and the general law
Where there had been a breach of such duty, the basic purpose of any remedy would be either to put the beneficiary in the same position as if the breach had not occurred or to vest in the beneficiary any profit which the trustee may have made by reason of the breach (and which ought therefore properly to be held on behalf of the beneficiary)
Placing the beneficiary in the same position as he would have been in but for the breach may involve restoring the value of something lost by the breach or making good financial damage caused by the breach
Monetary award which reflected neither loss caused nor profit gained by the wrongdoer would be penal.
"Breach of duty by trustee", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124952816
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Breach of duty by trustee"
2015 S C M R 177
AIB GROUP (UK) PLC — Appellant Versus MARK REDLER & CO. SOLICITORS — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of UK*2020 C L D 545
MS. ZAHIDJEE TEXTILE MILLS LTD. PROVIDENT FUND TRUST — Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SECP — Respondent
Court: Securities and Exchange Commission of PakistanL* = Lira
ATTORNEY‑GENERAL FOR HONG KONG‑‑‑Appellant Versus REID and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: (19941 All ER 1)P L D 1955 Lahore 242
Haji Sheikh MAHBOOB ILAHI and another‑Plaintiffs — Appellants Versus (Brigadier) K. M. IDRIS and 2 others‑Defendants — Respondents
Court: Expression explained with reference to section 2, Charit able Endowments Act, 1890 and section 118, Succession Act, 1925.2025 S C M R 1764
RUKHADZE and others — Appellants Versus RECOVERY PARTNERS GP LTD and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of UK*1993 M L D 1666
ANWAR AHMED KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. RACHAL JOSEPH‑‑‑Respondent
Court: KarachiP L
(CHIEF COMMISSIONER), KARACHI‑Applicant Versus DR. PESHOTON DUBASH‑Respondent
Court: Held that the instrument came within the description given in section 2 (24) of the Stamp Act and was liable to be charged with the higher duty levied under Article 58‑A (ii) of Schedule I of the Act. p. 121A2014 S C M R 1702
CEDAR CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC — Appellant Versus FHR EUROPEAN VENTURES LLP and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of UK*1993 S C M R 2124
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF TAMIL NADU ‑‑‑Appellant Versus UDAVUMKARANKAL and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of India2025 M L D 1580
Saleem Nayyar — Petitioner Versus Fawad Aadil and others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench)