TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aurabh Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Maithili Moondra, 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai claims to have a branch in Bangalore. SUIT NO. 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 man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers of the ISKCON Bangalore and its temples or to exercise control over the possession of the property mentioned 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 woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lore. According to the appellant, ISKCON Bangalore became defunct, and no activity was carried out by it. In July 1984, one Madhu Pandit Dasa (Madhu Pandit), the 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 lett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16. Learned counsel pointed out that Regular First Appeal No.421 of 2009 arising out of Suit No.7934 of 2001 was decided by the High Court on 23rd May 2011. The said Appeal 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intiff to the 6th plaintiff. Learned counsel pointed out that even the 2nd witness examined by the plaintiffs produced a certified copy of the extract of the register of the Societies 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 submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... These two applications were marked as exhibits without any objection from the defendants. Learned counsel pointed out that the 1st defendant in the suit alleged that the seal of ISKCON Bangalore 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 wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decide the title to the property. He pointed out sources of funds which were available to the plaintiff society at the relevant time. Inviting our attention to the evidence on record, he submitted 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e previous suits. Relying upon various documents on record and circumstances, he submitted that ISKCON Bangalore never actually functioned. He pointed out the admission by Shanka Brita Das, the founder of ISKCON 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 retur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duced on record, show that they have been manipulated. He submitted that merely because Schedule 'A' property is not registered under the provisions of the MPT Act as the property of ISKCON Mumbai its title is not 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. 793....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction sought for? 6. Whether the valuation of the suit is proper and the court fee paid thereon is correct and adequate? 6A. whether the 1st defendant is entitled to permanent injunction sought for in its counter claim? 7. To what 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounts were not produced. Therefore, the High Court has concluded that at least till 1988-89, the society was defunct. 40. The High Court has recorded a finding that Madhu Pandit, in the earlier suits filed, which are mentioned in paragraph 39 of the judgment, had categorically admitted the existence of a branch of ISKCON Mumbai at Delhi. As far as the existence 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 Ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the cash amount was utilised to purchase pay orders amounting to Rs. 2,75,000/-. He stated that a cash amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was deposited in the Canara Bank account of the BDA. Therefore, the entire consideration for Schedule 'A' property was paid by cash. The payments of Rs.2,75,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- are evidenced by challans issued by the BDA at exhibits P55 and P56, respectively. 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 ISKC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as enclosed along with the application, along with a copy of the Memorandum of Association of ISKCON Bangalore. The application is signed by Madhu Pandit. Upon a plain reading of the application and the accompanying documents, it appears that the same was submitted by ISKCON Bangalore, a registered society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. There is nothing on record to show that the 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the grant of exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, indicate that the application for allotment was made on behalf of ISKCON Bangalore and that allotment was made to the said Society. There is nothing placed on record to show that any correspondence was made by ISKCON Mumbai with any authority or any party claiming that the allotment of Schedule 'A' property was made to ISKCON Mumbai. No application 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority to make bulk allotment.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or development scheme sanctioned under this Act, the Authority may, subject to any restriction, condition and limitation as may be prescribed, make bulk allotment by way of sale, lease or otherwise of any land which belongs to it or is vested in it or acquired by it for the purpose of any development scheme,- (i) to the State 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 ISKC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....April 2009 must be restored. 57. We are of the view that as the application for allotment was made by ISKCON Bangalore and as pursuant to the application, the sale deed was executed in favour of ISKCON Bangalore, the entire discussion by the High Court about so-called manipulations made by Madhu Pandit, Bhakti Lata Devi Dasi, Chanchalapati Dasa, Chamari Devi Dasi was not relevant at all. Even assuming that the rubber stamp of ISKCON Bangalore was affixed on certain documents 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 j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The 2nd defendant filed a written statement opposing the suit by contending that ISKCON Bangalore was never inactive. The 7th defendant filed a written statement opposing the plaintiffs by contending that the ISKCON Bangalore was always active. 60. The 11th defendant filed a detailed written statement contending that in 1983, the 1st defendant requested the 11th defendant to take over the activities of ISKCON Bangalore as its President. Accordingly, at the Annual General Body Meeting 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....witness examined by the plaintiffs is Amrit Chaitanya Dasa. He claimed that he was raising funds for ISKCON Mumbai, and to his knowledge, ISKCON Bangalore did not exist. He claimed that the ISKCON temple at Bangalore had nothing to do with ISKCON Bangalore. He stated in his cross-examination that he became aware of the registration of ISKCON Bangalore for the first time in 2004. He was asked to give evidence for the first time in the year 2008. 64. Another witness examined by the plaintiffs is one Bhanu Swami. He claimed that according 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 stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 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. 70. We may note here that plaintiffs have adduced no evidence to prove their case. 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. 71. 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....