ORDER 1. Dunlop India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), which has since been dissolved, had floated a fund known as "Dunlop Executive Staff Pension Fund" (hereinafter referred to as "Pension Fund") for providing pension and annuities to members of the executive management staff of the Company. The fund was to be managed and administered by the trust, with a stipulation that the trust shall function as per law in force in India relating to pension funds and no money belonging to the fund shall be recoverable by the Company and neither would the Company have any lien or charge of any description on the same. 2. The Company became sick and was declared as such by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) sometime in the year 1988. 3. An application was filed by the trustees of the Pension Fund under Section 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the High Court, inter alia, contending that the purpose of the trust had been achieved/fulfilled and that a sum of about Rs.21 crores which was lying in the credit of the trust (Pension Fund) and accrued interest should be transferred/refunded to the Company. 4. The learned single judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court refused to accept the prayer made on behalf of the trustees for reasons recorded in the said order(s) which need not be specifically noted. 5. When the matter came before this Court a learned judge of this Court held that Section 34 of the Act, which empowers the Court with the summary jurisdiction and a discretionary power, may not be an appropriate provision of law for deciding the matter and accordingly upheld the view of the High Court. Another learned judge of this Court while not entirely disagreeing, held a different view, primarily, based on the assertion that as all the beneficiaries of the fund had been paid off, the purpose of the trust had been fulfilled. Direction to refund the trust fund to the Company could be issued under Article 142 of the Constitution. 6. It is on account of the aforesaid difference of opinion that the matter has been posted before this larger Bench. 7. We have considered the matter. Direction to refund the trust fund to the Company could be issued under Article 142 of the Constitution. 6. It is on account of the aforesaid difference of opinion that the matter has been posted before this larger Bench. 7. We have considered the matter. The fact that all the beneficiaries under the trust have been paid off and the purpose of the trust has been completely fulfilled is not an admitted fact inasmuch as it has been recorded in the judgment and order of this Court dated 13th March, 2007 reported in (2007) 5 SCC 189 that three suits with regard to the subject matter were pending, which suits, we are told, are pending as on date. 8. As to whether all the beneficiaries have been paid off; whether legal heirs of such beneficiaries would be entitled to the benefit under the Pension Fund; and whether there are any other dues which are liable to be adjusted against what is claimed to be surplus dues on behalf of the Company, interpretation of the clauses of the trust deed, etc. are matters which cannot be resolved in exercise of summary jurisdiction under Section 34. We, therefore, agree with the view expressed that the present is not a fit case for invocation of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act; neither the present is a fit case for appropriate directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We further agree with the view expressed that the aggrieved party/parties must be left with the remedy of approaching the Civil Court by way of Civil Suit or to take/adopt such other remedies as may be open in law. 9. We, therefore, close this appeal in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions. Consequently, all pending applications including the application for impleadment shall stand disposed of.