16 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A protracted legal battle unfolded between two entities sharing a similar name: the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON Mumbai) and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON Bangalore). This dispute, heard by the Supreme Court of India, centered on fundamental questions of organizational control, membership, and the rightful ownership of significant properties, most notably the ISKCON temple in Bangalore.

The crux of the matter involved two primary suits: Suit No. 1758 of 2003 and Suit No. 7934 of 2001.

Suit No. 1758 of 2003: The Question of Governance

Filed by Amiya Vilas Swami and others, including ISKCON Bangalore as the sixth plaintiff, this suit sought declarations regarding the composition of ISKCON Bangalore's Governing Body and an injunction to prevent interference with its management. The plaintiffs claimed that certain individuals constituted the legitimate Governing Body and that the named defendants had no right to manage or control ISKCON Bangalore. They also sought a mandatory injunction to transfer all assets, affairs, and records to the asserted Governing Body.

The City Civil Court, Bangalore, dismissed this suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims regarding the Governing Body's composition and the defendants' lack of management rights. The Trial Court accepted the defendants' argument that their Governing Body was validly elected in a general body meeting held on July 1, 1984. An appeal against this dismissal (Regular First Appeal No. 423 of 2009) was subsequently dismissed by the High Court.

Suit No. 7934 of 2001: The Property Ownership Claim

ISKCON Bangalore filed this suit against ISKCON Mumbai, primarily seeking a declaration of absolute ownership over immovable and movable properties described in Schedules 'A', 'B', and 'C'. A key prayer was for a declaration that ISKCON Mumbai's executive committee or bureau lacked the authority to remove office bearers of ISKCON Bangalore, or to control its property and affairs. Consequential injunctions were also sought.

ISKCON Mumbai filed a counter-claim, asserting that the properties in question belonged to it. The Trial Court decreed ISKCON Bangalore's suit, holding it as the absolute owner of the properties and declaring ISKCON Mumbai had no power over its office bearers or properties. The counter-claim by ISKCON Mumbai was dismissed.

However, in an appeal (Regular First Appeal No. 421 of 2009), the High Court overturned the Trial Court's decision, allowing ISKCON Mumbai's counter-claim. This High Court judgment restrained ISKCON Bangalore and its office bearers from interfering with ISKCON Mumbai's possession and enjoyment of the Bangalore properties. ISKCON Bangalore then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 9313 of 2014).

Key Contentions and Supreme Court Intervention

During the Supreme Court proceedings, an interim order in December 2011 led to the appointment of a committee, chaired by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran (retired), to oversee the management of the temple and its properties by ISKCON Bangalore. The committee was empowered to advise on management matters.

Arguments presented highlighted the complex history of the Bangalore branch, with claims of ISKCON Bangalore being defunct at one point. Submissions also touched upon discrepancies in documents, such as minutes of annual general meetings, and the validity of membership and election processes. The question of property acquisition was central, with ISKCON Bangalore claiming direct acquisition through a conveyance deed from the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in 1988, while ISKCON Mumbai asserted the acquisition was made through its Bangalore branch, funded by donations and utilizing its tax exemption certificate.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court had to navigate these intricate factual and legal arguments to determine the rightful control and ownership of the ISKCON Bangalore properties, aiming to bring a long-standing dispute to a definitive close.