Parties Litigated For More Than 20 Yrs; Need To Bring Dispute To A Close: Supreme Court In ISKCON Mumbai V. ISKCON Bangalore Case
|The Supreme Court was deciding Civil Appeals and a group of cases with two Suits involving ISKCON Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore.
The Supreme Court has closed the dispute between the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (ISKCON Mumbai) and ISKCON Bangalore.
The Court was dealing with Civil Appeals and a group of cases with two Suits involving ISKCON Mumbai registered as a public trust under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act) having a registered office in Juhu, Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 having a registered office in Bangalore.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih remarked, “According to the available records, Late Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada initiated the Hare Krishna movement. Looking to the case made out regarding the object of the said movement, in fact, the dispute between ISKCON Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore ought not to have been brought to the Court. However, they have done so, and in the process, they have litigated for a span of more than 20 years. Therefore, we need to bring the dispute to a close, and that is how we are inclined to quash the FIR. For the same reason, we are not inclined to proceed further in the contempt petition.”
Facts of the Case
ISKCON Mumbai claimed to have a branch in Bangalore. A Suit was filed by Amiya Vilas Swami and four other individuals as the first five Plaintiffs. The said Amiya Vilas Swami claimed to be the disciple and son of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. The 6th Plaintiff in this suit was ISKCON Bangalore. Shanka Brita Das and 16 others were Defendants in the said suit. In the suit, a relief was sought for a declaration that the 1st to 5th Plaintiffs and 1st and 10th Defendants constitute the Governing Body of the 6th Plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore, which was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. A further declaration that the 11th to 17th Defendants have no right to manage or control the ISKCON Bangalore. Also, a mandatory injunction enjoining the said Defendants to make over to the governing body of ISKCON Bangalore was sought.
The City Civil Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiffs approached the High Court, which dismissed their Appeal. Another suit was filed by ISKCON Bangalore with ISKCON Mumbai as the Defendant. It was sought that ISKCON Bangalore was the absolute owner of the immovable properties and a declaration that the Executive Committee or Bureau of the ISKCON Mumbai has no power or authority to remove the President or any office bearers of ISKCON Bangalore and its temples or to exercise control over the possession of the property of the Plaintiff Society or administration of affairs of ISKCON Bangalore. The said suit was decreed and the counter-claim was dismissed. The Defendant’s Appeal was allowed and the Trial Court’s decree was set aside. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, observed, “The Trial Court has examined (Exhibit D-1), which is a certified copy of the proceedings of the General Body Meeting dated 1st July 1984, of which D-13 is the original. Exhibit D-9 is the certified copy of the notice dated 25th May 1984 of the said meeting. The Trial Court also examined the other documentary evidence on record. After considering his cross-examination, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs were not in a position to impeach the testimony of DW-1, insofar as it related to the Annual General Body Meeting held on July 1, 1984. Ultimately, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the case of the 11th to 17th defendants, for which a General Body Meeting was held on 1st July 1984, deserves to be accepted.”
The Court further noted that the Plaintiffs have adduced no evidence to prove their case and both the Courts have accepted the case of the 11th to 17th Defendants, who claim that they were elected in the July 1984 meeting.
“After having perused the pleadings and evidence on record, we find no error in the view taken by the Trial Court as well as the High Court”, it added.
The Court also ordered that the committee headed by Justice R.V. Raveendran, a former Judge of the Supreme Court shall stand dissolved on expiry of period of one month from the date of the Judgment.
“… the decree passed in Suit No. 7934 of 2001 by the City Civil Court, Bangalore on 17th April 2009 is restored”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeals.
Cause Title- Prasannatma Das v. K.N. Haridasan Nambiar (Dead) and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 717)
Appearance:
Senior Advocates Krishnan Venugopal, Rakesh Dwivedi, Jaideep Gupta, V. Srinivasa Raghavan, Siddhartha Dave, AORs Pooja Dhar, Vikas Singh Jangra, D.K. Devesh, Pushpinder Singh, Samar Vijay Singh, B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Ashok Mathur, Nachiketa Joshi, Prem Prakash, V.N. Raghupathy, D.L. Chidananda, Jogy Scaria, Advocates J. Rajesh, Avinash Mathews, Krishnan Agarwal, V. Lakshmikumaran, Sansriti Pathak, D.K. Devesh, Kartik Seth, Shriya Gilhotra, Vikas Singh Jangra, Maithili Moondra, Sanskriti Pathak, Raghav Sharma, Prashanth R. Dixit, Mahesh Bhati, Saurabh Chaturvedi, Chiranjeev Sharma, Pushkin Tandon, Medha Srivastava, Kuriakose Varghese, Velayudhan Shyamohan, Anshika Bajpai, Akshat Gogna, Tissy Annie Thomas, Vrinda Baheti, Upendra Pratap Singh, Harsh Singh Rawat, Suprabh Kumar Roshan, Shashank Saurav, Shailja Nanda Mishra, Nachiketa Joshi, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Santosh Kumar, Nikhil Majithia, Joydeep Roy, Pranit Pranav, Palav Mongia, Rohit Subramonium, Yuvraj Gaekwad, N.K. Agarwal, Sourabh Rajpal, Shalini Kaul, Samar Vijay Singh, Sunil Kumar Roy, Sabarni Som, Shanti Ranjan, Bhavishya Ranjan, Manish Mittal, Pankaj Kumar, Sidharth Arora, Vaibhav Tiwari, Himadri Haksar, Karishma Rajput, Sagrika Arya, and Karan Tomar.