TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndra, Adv. Mr. Chiranjeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prashanth R. Dixit, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Bhati, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Chiranjeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pushkin Tandon, Adv. Ms. Medha Srivastava, Adv. M/S. Chambers of Kartik Seth, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Batra, AOR Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. Velayudhan Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Akshat Gogna, Adv. Ms. Tissy Annie Thomas, Adv. Ms. Vrinda Baheti, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. M/S. Chambers of Kartik Seth, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Srinivasa Raghavan, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. D.K. Devesh, Adv. Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Harsh Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Suprabh Kumar Roshan, Adv. Mr. Shashank Saurav, Adv. Mr. Shailja Nanda Mishra, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nikhil ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O. 1758 of 2003 2. This 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 is ISKCON Bangalore. Shanka Brita Das and 16 others were defendants in the said suit. 3. In the Suit, the following reliefs were prayed for:- a) a declaration that the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and 1st to 10th defendants constitute the Governing Body of the 6th plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore, which was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act; b) a declaration that the 11th to 17th defendants have no right to manage or control the 6th plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore; c) a mandatory injunction enjoining the 11th to 17th defendants to make over to the governing body of the 6th plaintiff, comprising the 1st to 5th plaintiff and 1st to 10th defendants, all the assets, effects, affairs, books of account, and records of ISKCON Bangalore; d) a perpetual injunction restraining the 11th to 17th defendants from interfering with the management and control of ISKCON Bangalore. 4. The learned judge of the City Civil C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Schedules 'A' 'B', and 'C'. Consequential relief of injunction was granted by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the 1st to 4th defendants preferred Regular First Appeal No.421 of 2009. By the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd May 2011, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the decree passed by the Trial Court. The counter- claim made by ISKCON Mumbai was allowed by granting a decree restraining ISKCON Bangalore or its office bearers or any persons claiming on their behalf from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of Schedule 'A' ', B', and 'C' properties of the Bangalore Branch of ISKCON Mumbai. Civil Appeal No.9313 of 2014 has been preferred by the original plaintiff (ISKCON Bangalore), being aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court. 9. We find from the order sheets that, by the order dated 6th June 2011 in Civil Appeal No.9313 of 2014, the day-to-day management of the temple on the Schedule 'A' property of the ISKCON Bangalore was protected, subject to the condition that it would not take any major decisions. Under the order dated 14th December 2011, this Court appointed a committee headed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11th defendant, who was president of the Trivandrum branch of ISKCON, was sent to the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai as the branch President. One Chanchalpati Das, 12th defendant, who is a brother-in-law of Madhu Pandit, was sent as the Vice-Chairman of the Bangalore branch. 12. Learned counsel submitted that the terms 'Managing Committee' and 'Governing Body' are used interchangeably, and therefore, the prayer in the Suit No.1758 of 2003 was for a declaration that the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and 1st to 10th defendants were members of the Managing Committee. They have been shown as members of the Managing Committee in the Memorandum of Association of ISKCON Bangalore. This fact is admitted. The 11th to 17th defendants were never inducted as members of the ISKCON Bangalore, and therefore, they were not the members of the Governing Body. There is no evidence produced on record to show that the 11th to 17th defendants were elected as members of the Governing Body or Managing Committee. He submitted that, except for a letter dated 15th June 1984 addressed by the 1st defendant stating that he admitted Madhu Pandit and others as the members of ISKCON Bangalore, there is no other evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l was decided by a Division Bench. The High Court held that the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai had been functioning in Bangalore all along and that ISKCON Bangalore had never functioned after it was registered. The Division Bench found that ISKCON Mumbai was the owner of the property subject matter of Suit No. 7934 of 2001, and Madhu Pandit had functioned as the President of the Bangalore branch. He pointed out the finding recorded in RFA No.421 of 2009 by the Division Bench holding that ISKCON Bangalore did not function. The Division Bench held that ISKCON Mumbai had a branch in Bangalore, and in fact, the branch was operational. His submission is that while deciding RFA No.423 of 2009, which is the subject matter of challenge in this civil appeal, the learned Single Judge ought to have adverted to the findings recorded in RFA No.421 of 2009. 17. Learned counsel submitted that Madhu Pandit admitted in his deposition recorded in 1986 in Original Suit No.4165 of 1984 that he was functioning as the President of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai, which had acquired the land for the Bangalore temple and constructed a temple thereon. He also pointed out the finding that the temp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s maintained by the Registrar of Societies, in which there was an entry to the effect that accounts and a list of the members of the management as on 31st March 1987 was filed on 24th September 1987. It is submitted that the documents produced by the plaintiffs themselves demolish the theory that the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and the 1st to 10th defendants constituted the Governing Body. He submitted that the 1st defendant, after supporting the stand taken by the plaintiffs in the written statement, was not examined as a witness. Therefore, when other contesting defendants served interrogatories upon the 1st defendant, he admitted his signatures on the proceedings of 1979 as well as the 1984 meeting. He submitted that there is no prayer made for challenging the validity of the minutes of the 1st July 1984 meeting. He submitted that the suit was barred by limitation as the right to sue accrued for the first time in 1987. He placed emphasis on the legal effect of the failure to examine Madhu Pandit. He submitted that the whole litigation is at the instance of the ISKCON Mumbai. 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 9th respondent (11th defendant, Madhu Pandit) submitted that Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was affixed on the application dated 5th February 1987 to make it look like ISKCON Bangalore's application. Apart from relying on the recitals in the sale deed dated 3rd August 1988, executed by BDA, the learned counsel submitted that Madhu Pandit signed and submitted the allotment application. It was submitted that the President of the ISKCON Bangalore for the year 1987-1988 was Madhu Pandit. He submitted that a branch of ISKCON Mumbai is not a legal entity, and therefore, it was ineligible to receive allotment from BDA. Learned counsel pointed out that the plot was allotted to ISKCON Bangalore by the BDA on 23rd September 1987. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have relied upon the letter dated 28th November 1987 (D81) for recording a finding that bulk land from BDA was secured by the branch of ISKCON Mumbai by Madhu Pandit by using the Memorandum of Association of ISKCON Bangalore. 24. Learned counsel submitted that the execution of the sale deed by BDA was not denied in the written statement. As the execution was not denied or disputed, it was not necessary to examine any witness to prove the same as held by this Court in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that there was no evidence to show that the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai existed in Bangalore. 25. On the allegation of fraud made by the 1st defendant, the learned counsel submitted that fraud must always be specifically pleaded with material facts constituting the alleged fraud. In this case, there was no specific pleading on that behalf. It is submitted that the allegation of fraud made by the 1st defendant (ISKCON Mumbai) was purely speculative, and there was no evidence in support of the plea of fraud. Learned counsel also dealt with allegations of tampering with BDA files made by the 1st defendant. 26. Learned counsel submitted that the admissions of Madhu Pandit were irrelevant. He submitted that the non-examination of Madhu Pandit is not fatal. He submitted that the plaintiff had submitted sufficient documents. He submitted that the plaintiff, ISKCON Bangalore, was never defunct and was fully functional. He pointed out several documents on that behalf. He pointed out that these documents were marked as exhibits without any objection from the 1st defendant- ISKCON Mumbai. 27. He submitted that Madhu Pandit was elected as the President of ISKCON Bangalore on July 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N Bangalore, in his written statement in Suit No.1758 of 2003. He pointed out that there is no evidence to show that Madhu Pandit and Stoka Krishna Dasa were admitted as members in any General Body meeting. He pointed out that, until 1988, no reports had been filed with the Office of the Registrar of Societies. In fact, from the date of registration until 2002, ISKCON Bangalore had not filed income tax returns. Even, telephone bills were not produced to show that the telephone was functioning. The certificate issued under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act to ISKCON Bangalore was never used. 31. The learned senior counsel submitted that as rightly found by the High Court, a branch of ISKCON Mumbai existed and functioned at Bangalore. In fact, Madhu Pandit had sent audited accounts of the Bangalore branch to ISKCON Mumbai. He pointed out that the audited accounts of the Bangalore branch from 1982 to 2000 were sent to ISKCON Mumbai, which are reflected in the income tax returns of ISKCON Mumbai. A certificate under Section 80 G of the Income Tax Act, issued to ISKCON Mumbai, was used by the Bangalore branch to raise funds. He pointed out admissions of Madhu Pandit in the earlier five....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken away. He submitted that under clause (vi) of Section 38B of the BDA Act, bulk allotment could also be made to a Trust formed only for charitable, educational and religious purposes. ISKCON Mumbai was registered as a charitable Trust under the MPT Act. Learned counsel pointed out that there is no reason to disturb findings of fact recorded by the High Court. He submitted that now the Bangalore temple is under the management of the Oversight Committee appointed by this Court. He pointed out that Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendaran, a retired Judge of this Court, has stopped taking any remuneration since the year 2020, and the number of meetings of the Oversight Committee have been reduced to three to four in a year. He would, therefore, submit that no interference is called for. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS (IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.9313 OF 2014) 33. One of the main issues that arises for consideration is whether the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of Suit No. 7934 of 2001 was allotted by the BDA to ISKCON Mumbai through its branch in Bangalore or to ISKCON Bangalore. Schedule 'A' property is a land bearing Survey Nos. 174 and 175 in Stage II, Rajajinagar Extension, Bangalore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order or decree? 36. After the appeal was heard, the High Court proceeded to recast the issues by the order dated 29th October 2010 by consent of the parties and directed that the same would be treated as points for consideration in the appeal in accordance with Rule 31 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CPC). The recast issues read thus: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that after its registration in 1978 it continued to function or became defunct as contended by the defendants? 2. Whether defendants prove that they are having a branch at Bangalore by name ISKCON Bangalore? 3. Whether Madhu Pandit Das functioned as President of plaintiff society or of ISKCON Bangalore? 4. Whether plaintiff proves that they are the owners in possession of plaint schedule property? 5. Whether the defendants prove that they are the owners in possession of plaint schedule properties through their branch, ISKCON Bangalore? 6. Whether the defendants prove that plaintiff society, by taking advantage of 1st defendant's branch name ISKCON Bangalore is claiming illegally and fraudulently the schedule property as its property? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai is concerned, the High Court has referred to a Resolution dated 9th February 1990 passed by ISKCON Bangalore. A copy of the resolution is at Exh.P.205. It reads thus: "We record our gratitude to the Bombay society for handing over the state of affairs of Bangalore branch of Bombay to our society conveyed through and again by his holiness Jai Pataka Swamy formed on behalf of the bureau. I like to acknowledge with gratitude that the donors and the devotees at Bangalore have aided the development of the Centre into autonomous centre. Thus, the procurement of its own land last year has opened a new chapter for ISKCON movement in Karnataka" (underline supplied) Therefore, even the plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore accepted that there was a branch of ISKCON Mumbai in Bangalore. However, it also records that the affairs of the Bangalore branch were handed over to ISKCON Bangalore. The last sentence indicates that ISKCON Bangalore acquired Schedule 'A' property. 41. Now, we come to the acquisition of Schedule 'A' property. In the plaint, paragraph 3 contains a specific averment regarding the acquisition of Schedule 'A' property by ISKCON Bangalo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly. 45. We may note here that the letter dated 5th February 1987 was marked as Exh.P-51 in the deposition of PW-1 without any objection. In the cross-examination made by the advocate for ISKCON Mumbai, the witness stated that Madhu Pandit, as the President of ISKCON Bangalore, had made the application for allotment of Schedule 'A' property. Even the second witness, examined by ISKCON Bangalore, K.N. Haridasan Nambiar, stated in his examination-in-chief that Madhu Pandit had made an application to the BDA for the allotment of a site. 46. One Dayaram Dasa was examined as the first witness on behalf of ISKCON Mumbai. The stand taken in the examination-in-chief is very peculiar. It is stated that the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, Shri Ramakrishna Hegde, visited the ISKCON temple at Juhu of ISKCON Mumbai. During the visit, Shri Hegde assured that a sufficiently large plot of land would be allotted in Bangalore. It is further stated that the then Members of the Bureau supervising the Mumbai branch of ISKCON Mumbai instructed Madhu Pandit to apply in the name of the first defendant (ISKCON Mumbai) seeking allotment of a land. It is alleged that Madhu Pandit was the President of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he application (Exh.P-51) was manipulated or fabricated. That is not the case of ISKCON Mumbai. There is no indication in the application that it was signed by Madhu Pandit in his capacity as the President of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai. Though in the evidence, a case was made out by ISKCON Mumbai that Madhu Pandit was authorised to apply for allotment on behalf of ISKCON Mumbai in his capacity as the Chairman of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai, there is no document produced on record showing authorisation given to Madhu Pandit. Exh.P-53 is a letter dated 1st August 1987 addressed to the Chairman of the BDA by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, signed by the President of ISKCON Bangalore. The subject of the letter is the allotment of Schedule A land. In the first paragraph of the letter, it is stated that the applicant Society was registered in Karnataka. There is no allegation of manipulation or fabrication of this letter. By letter at Exh.P-54, the Commissioner of BDA called upon ISKCON Bangalore to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,75,000/-. The letter at Exh.P-57 dated 29th July 1987, addressed by Madhu Pandit in his capacity as ISKCON Bangalore, records ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication is shown to have been made by ISKCON Mumbai or its Bangalore branch. 51. In the entire correspondence in relation to the allotment of Schedule 'A' property, the name of ISKCON Bangalore appears. At some places, the name of ISKCON Karnataka appears. The High Court has recorded a finding that the round rubber seal of ISKCON Bangalore was affixed clandestinely to some of the correspondence with the BDA and the telephone department. There is a finding recorded that Madhu Pandit and his associates are falsely claiming the scheduled properties in the name of ISKCON Bangalore by taking advantage of the similarity in the name. The High Court recorded a finding that Schedule 'A' property has been acquired by ISKCON Mumbai in the name of its branch at Bangalore. The record of the BDA in support of this theory was not placed on record by ISKCON Mumbai. As stated earlier, from the application for allotment to the sale deed and subsequent correspondence, all documents are made in the name of ISKCON, Bangalore. As stated earlier along with the first application dated 1st February 1987 (Exh.P-51) a copy of the registration certificate of ISKCON Bangalore was produced and in the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government; or (ii) to the Central Government; or (iii) to any corporation, body or organisation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government; or (iv) to any housing co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959); or (v) to any society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960); or (vi) to a trust created wholly for charitable, educational or religious purpose: Provided that prior approval of the Government shall be obtained for allotment of land to any category listed above." (underline supplied) 53. In view of clause (v) of Section 38B, an application was made by ISKCON Bangalore for allotment. It is true that ISKCON Mumbai was also registered as a Public Trust under the MPT Act. However, the application dated 5th February 1987 and subsequent correspondence for allotment of Schedule 'A' property shows that it was always pleaded that the applicant was a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. If the application for allotment was made on behalf of ISKCON Mumbai, the pleading would have been that it is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents subsequently, it is crystal clear that Schedule 'A' property was allotted by the BDA to ISKCON Bangalore, and ISKCON Bangalore is an independent society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. 58. While going into the question whether the allotment was to ISKCON Mumbai in the name of the Bangalore branch, the High Court has recorded findings against various individuals which were not warranted at all. As we are setting aside the judgment in Regular First Appeal No.421 of 2009, Civil Appeal Nos.9311-9312 of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.9307-9308 of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.9305-9306 of 2014 and Civil Appeal Nos.9309-9310 of 2014 will not survive as the same are for expunging the remarks in the judgment in the High Court. The challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.9314 and 9315 of 2024 was to an order recasting the issues passed by the High Court. However, we find that the order of recasting issues was passed with the consent of all the parties as noted in paragraph 18 of the impugned Judgment in Civil Appeal No.9313 of 2014. Even Civil Appeal No.9316 of 2014 will not survive in view of the setting aside of the judgment in RFA No.421 of 2009. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS ( I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting held in 1984, the earlier office bearers resigned en masse. On 1st July 1984, the 11th defendant was elected as the President of the Governing Body, and the 12th to 17th defendants were also elected. The written statement refers to the fact that ISKCON Bangalore filed suit No. 7934 of 2001 to protect its properties. It is contended that the plaintiffs started showing interest in the affairs of ISKCON Bangalore after the lapse of 23 years, after a temporary injunction was granted in favour of ISKCON Bangalore for protecting its properties. Various other contentions were raised on facts. Similar contentions are raised in the written statements filed by the 12th, 13th, 15th to 17th defendants. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement supporting the plaintiffs. 61. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Trial Court framed the following seven issues: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1st to 5th plaintiff and 1st to 10th Defendant constitute the general body of the 6th plaintiff? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 11th to 17th Defendants have no right to manage or control the 6th plaintiff? 3) Whether the Defendants 11 to 17 prove that in the general body me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to his knowledge, the temple at Bangalore was of Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai. He claimed that he was never a member or functionary of ISKCON Bangalore. 65. Haridasan Nambiar, the 2nd defendant was examined as a witness. He stated that the Annual General Body Meeting of ISKCON Bangalore was held on 1st September 1979. He claimed that in the said meeting, one Shanka Brita Das was elected as the President. He claimed that the next General Body meetings were held in August 1985 and thereafter, in 1986, 1987 and 1988. In the cross-examination, he accepted that he had not pleaded anything about the 1st Annual General meeting in his written statement. He claimed that in the meeting held on 1st July 1984, the audited accounts were accepted. 66. Now, we turn to the findings recorded by the High Court. The High Court notes that on 10th December 2008, the 1st plaintiff, who was examined as PW-2, filed a memo stating that he was not pressing the suit. Therefore, he did not enter the witness box after the withdrawal of the suit by him. Even the 2nd plaintiff filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the suit. On 19th December 2008, the 3rd defendant filed a memo stating that he had re....