Supreme Court Clarifies Ownership Dispute Between ISKCON Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore (May 16, 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 16, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 717

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

The Supreme Court of India addressed a complex legal battle between two factions of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), specifically ISKCON Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore, concerning the ownership and control of properties in Bangalore. This dispute, spanning over two decades, involved multiple suits and appeals, ultimately requiring the Supreme Court’s intervention to settle the matter. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The core of the dispute revolves around two primary suits: Suit No. 1758 of 2003 and Suit No. 7934 of 2001. These suits involve two distinct societies: ISKCON Mumbai, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and ISKCON Bangalore, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. ISKCON Mumbai also claimed to have a branch in Bangalore, adding complexity to the dispute.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The City Civil Court, Bangalore, initially dismissed Suit No. 1758 of 2003 on April 17, 2009, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to prove they constituted the General Body of ISKCON Bangalore and that the defendants had no right to manage ISKCON Bangalore. The court accepted the defendants’ claim that they were elected to the Governing Body in a general body meeting on July 1, 1984.

Subsequently, the High Court dismissed Regular First Appeal No. 423 of 2009, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. In Suit No. 7934 of 2001, the Trial Court decreed in favor of ISKCON Bangalore, declaring it the absolute owner of the disputed properties and restraining ISKCON Mumbai from interfering with its affairs. However, the High Court reversed this decision in Regular First Appeal No. 421 of 2009, allowing ISKCON Mumbai’s counter-claim and restraining ISKCON Bangalore from interfering with the properties of the Bangalore Branch of ISKCON Mumbai.

Legal Framework

The judgment references several key legal provisions:

• Societies Registration Act, 1860: Under which ISKCON Mumbai is registered.
• Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act): Under which ISKCON Mumbai is also registered.
• Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960: Under which ISKCON Bangalore is registered.
• Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act): Specifically, Section 38B, which governs the power of the authority to make bulk allotments of land.
• Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act): Under which ISKCON Bangalore sought exemption for the allotted land.
• Income Tax Act, 1961: Sections 12A and 80G, related to exemptions and certificates for tax benefits.

Section 38B of the BDA Act is particularly relevant:

“38B. Power of 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.”

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant (Civil Appeal Nos. 3821-3822 of 2023)

• The High Court merely reproduced the Trial Court’s findings without properly evaluating the evidence, as required by K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan1 [(2021) 10 SCC 777].
• ISKCON Bangalore’s activities were initiated in 1975-1976 by devotees from the Hyderabad branch of ISKCON Mumbai.
• The Memorandum of Association and Rules of ISKCON Bangalore list the names of the plaintiffs and defendants in Suit No. 1758/2003 as members.
• The terms ‘Managing Committee’ and ‘Governing Body’ are interchangeable, and the plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were members of the Managing Committee.
• The 11th to 17th defendants were never inducted as members of ISKCON Bangalore and lack evidence of being elected to the Governing Body.
• A letter dated June 15, 1984, is the only evidence of admitting Madhu Pandit and others as members, without supporting minutes or resolutions.
• The minutes of the Annual General Meeting held on July 1, 1984, contain discrepancies, suggesting manipulation.
• The 11th to 17th defendants belatedly produced minutes from July 1, 1979, after evidence was recorded, which are allegedly fabricated.
• The 1st defendant inconsistently admitted the minutes of the July 1, 1984 meeting despite denying that such a meeting occurred in the written statement.
• Madhu Pandit initially claimed the Memorandum of Association and Rules of ISKCON Bangalore were inconsistent but later admitted them during final arguments.
• The 11th to 17th defendants relied solely on the 1st defendant’s reply to interrogatories to prove the minutes of the July 1, 1984 meeting, despite the 1st defendant’s denial of the meeting in his written statement.
• The High Court’s decision in RFA No. 421 of 2009 (Suit No. 7934 of 2001) found that ISKCON Bangalore never functioned after registration and that ISKCON Mumbai owned the property, which the Single Judge failed to consider.
• Madhu Pandit admitted in a 1986 deposition that he functioned as the President of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai, which acquired land and constructed a temple.
• The temple in Bangalore was constructed on land allotted by the BDA to the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai.
• The 11th to 17th defendants have no right to manage or control ISKCON Bangalore.

Arguments of the 9th to 12th Respondents (11th to 14th defendants in Suit no.1758 of 2003)

• The appeal by the present appellant (5th defendant) should not be entertained because the appellant did not file a written statement.
• The original plaintiffs asserted that ISKCON Bangalore was defunct with no accounts or assets, yet sought a mandatory injunction stating that its Governing Body comprised the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and the 1st to 10th defendants.
• The plaintiffs claimed that no general meeting or election was held after the society’s registration, making it impossible for the 1st to 5th plaintiffs and the 1st to 10th defendants to be members of the Governing Body.
• A letter dated September 6, 1996, from the 3rd plaintiff to the 6th plaintiff and a certified copy of the register of societies showed that accounts and a list of management members were filed on September 24, 1987, contradicting the plaintiffs’ claims.
• The 1st defendant, who initially supported the plaintiffs in the written statement, was not examined as a witness.
• The 1st defendant admitted his signatures on the proceedings of 1979 and the 1984 meeting in response to interrogatories.
• There is no prayer to challenge the validity of the minutes of the July 1, 1984 meeting.
• The suit is barred by limitation as the right to sue first accrued in 1987.
• Failure to examine Madhu Pandit is legally significant.
• The litigation is primarily at the instance of ISKCON Mumbai.

Arguments of the 9th Respondent (11th defendant, Madhu Pandit)

• Suit No. 1758 of 2003 is infructuous because many alleged members of the Governing Body are deceased.
• The resolution of July 1, 1984, cannot be challenged by filing Suit No. 1758 of 2023.
• Respondent no. 9 has not filed a written statement.

Arguments of the Appellant (Civil Appeal No. 9313 of 2014)

• The BDA allotted property in Schedule ‘A’ to ISKCON Bangalore, not ISKCON Mumbai, as evidenced by the application dated February 5, 1987, and the registered sale deed executed on August 3, 1988.
• The sale deed explicitly states that ISKCON Bangalore applied for the allotment of the plot.
• Section 38B(v) of the BDA Act allows bulk land allotment only to societies registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, making ISKCON Mumbai ineligible.
• The initial application dated February 5, 1987, was made by ISKCON Bangalore, stating it was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act.
• The follow-up application in Kannada on August 1, 1987, was also on behalf of ISKCON Bangalore.
• The 1st defendant alleged that the seal of ISKCON Bangalore was affixed on the application dated February 5, 1987, to make it appear as ISKCON Bangalore’s application.
• Madhu Pandit signed and submitted the allotment application as the President of ISKCON Bangalore for the year 1987-1988.
• A branch of ISKCON Mumbai is not a legal entity and is ineligible to receive allotment from BDA.
• The High Court should not have relied upon the letter dated November 28, 1987 (D81), to conclude that bulk land was secured by the branch of ISKCON Mumbai using the Memorandum of Association of ISKCON Bangalore.
• The execution of the sale deed by BDA was not denied in the written statement, making it unnecessary to examine any witness to prove it, as held in Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana [(2016) 12 SCC 288].
• The title of Schedule ‘A’ property passed to ISKCON Bangalore by virtue of the sale deed.
• The telephone number mentioned on the allotment application dated February 5, 1987, belongs to ISKCON Bangalore.
• The address in the sale deed is that of ISKCON Bangalore.
• Exemption granted under the ULC Act was in favor of ISKCON Bangalore.
• Payments made to the BDA have been recorded in the books of account of ISKCON Bangalore for the year 1987-1988.
• ISKCON Bangalore had bank accounts in Vysya Bank and Indian Overseas Bank.
• Schedule ‘A’ property is shown as a fixed asset of ISKCON Bangalore in the audit of the plaintiffs’ financial statements.
• Funds of ISKCON Bangalore have been spent on the construction of the temple.
• Schedule ‘A’ property was not registered as required by Section 22B of the MPT Act.
• The appellant filed statutory accounts with the Registrar of Societies under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act on September 24, 1987.
• ISKCON Bangalore consolidated its accounts with ISKCON Mumbai until 2000 because ISKCON Bangalore was a member of ISKCON Mumbai.
• The High Court erred in finding that ISKCON Bangalore never availed the benefits under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite having registered under it.
• Donations were mobilized locally and from abroad by ISKCON Bangalore, and some donors used the Section 80G certificate of ISKCON Mumbai, which does not transfer the title of Schedule ‘A’ property to ISKCON Mumbai.
• The source of funds for acquiring property does not determine the title to the property.
• There is no evidence to show that the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai existed in Bangalore.
• The allegation of fraud made by the 1st defendant was speculative and lacked specific pleading with material facts.
• The non-examination of Madhu Pandit is not fatal, as the plaintiff submitted sufficient documents.
• ISKCON Bangalore was never defunct and was fully functional.
• Madhu Pandit was elected as the President of ISKCON Bangalore on July 1, 1984.

Arguments of the 1st Respondent (ISKCON Mumbai)

• ISKCON Bangalore, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, was always a defunct society.
• Four out of seven members of the Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore consisted of Madhu Pandit, his wife, his wife’s sister, and his wife’s sister’s husband (Chanchalapati Dasa).
• ISKCON Bangalore is the alter ego of Madhu Pandit.
• 82 out of 110 documents produced by ISKCON Bangalore are authored or signed by Madhu Pandit.
• Madhu Pandit relied on the registration certificate, Memorandum of Association, and Rules and Regulations of ISKCON Mumbai in three earlier suits.
• Madhu Pandit admitted that the temple at Bangalore is a branch of ISKCON Mumbai and that accounts of ISKCON Bangalore were sent to ISKCON Mumbai for consolidation.
• An adverse inference must be drawn against ISKCON Bangalore due to Madhu Pandit’s failure to testify.
• ISKCON Bangalore never actually functioned.
• Shanka Brita Das, the founder of ISKCON Bangalore, admitted this in his written statement in Suit No. 1758 of 2003.
• There is no evidence that Madhu Pandit and Stoka Krishna Dasa were admitted as members in any General Body meeting.
• Until 1988, no reports were filed with the Office of the Registrar of Societies, and from registration until 2002, ISKCON Bangalore did not file income tax returns.
• 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.
• A branch of ISKCON Mumbai existed and functioned at Bangalore, and Madhu Pandit sent audited accounts of the Bangalore branch to ISKCON Mumbai.
• Audited accounts of the Bangalore branch from 1982 to 2000 were sent to ISKCON Mumbai and reflected in ISKCON Mumbai’s income tax returns.
• A certificate under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, issued to ISKCON Mumbai, was used by the Bangalore branch to raise funds.
• Madhu Pandit made admissions in five earlier proceedings about the existence of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai.
• The documents pertaining to the functioning of the Bangalore branch were in the custody of Madhu Pandit and his associates and were produced belatedly in 2008, along with manipulated depositions of PW-1.
• A round rubber seal of ISKCON Bangalore was affixed to the application for allotment of land made to the BDA through interpolation and insertion.
• The sale deed dated August 3, 1988, and possession certificate issued by the BDA signed by Madhu Pandit do not include the word Karnataka, the registration number of the Bangalore society, or the round rubber seal of the Bangalore society, and the address of the purchaser is shown as 210, Bellary Road, the address of the Bangalore branch.
• Funds for the land and construction were collected using the Section 80-G certificate of ISKCON Mumbai and accounted for in ISKCON Mumbai’s income tax returns.
• The ledger account showing payment of cash was discarded by the High Court.
• The title documents, including the possession certificate, were manipulated.
• The application dated February 5, 1987, is forged and fabricated, and Madhu Pandit did not testify to prove it.
• The BDA note sheets have been manipulated.
• Schedule ‘A’ property is not registered under the provisions of the MPT Act as the property of ISKCON Mumbai, but this does not negate its title.
• 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, and ISKCON Mumbai was registered as a charitable Trust under the MPT Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. 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.
2. Whether there was a General Body Meeting held on 1st July 1984 in which the Governing Body was elected.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 9313 of 2014, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and decree in Regular First Appeal No. 421 of 2009. The Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decree in Suit No. 7934 of 2001, declaring ISKCON Bangalore as the absolute owner of the Schedule ‘A’ property and permanently restraining ISKCON Mumbai from interfering with its possession.

However, the Court dismissed Civil Appeal Nos. 3821-3822 of 2023, upholding the High Court’s judgment and decree in Regular First Appeal No. 423 of 2009, which dismissed Suit No. 1758 of 2003. This confirmed that the plaintiffs in Suit No. 1758 of 2003 failed to prove their claim to be the validly constituted General Body of ISKCON Bangalore.

The Court made it clear that the dismissal of Civil Appeal Nos. 3821-3822 of 2023 would not affect ISKCON Mumbai’s right to seek remedies under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, if they believed there was mismanagement of the Trust.

Key Observations

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the sale deed executed by the BDA in favor of ISKCON Bangalore. The Court noted that the application for allotment was made by ISKCON Bangalore, and the sale deed explicitly conveyed the property to them. The Court also highlighted that Section 38B(v) of the BDA Act allows bulk land allotment only to societies registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, making ISKCON Mumbai ineligible for direct allotment.

The Court acknowledged the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the High Court regarding the validity of the July 1, 1984 meeting, where the Governing Body of ISKCON Bangalore was elected. The Court found no compelling reason to disturb these findings.

The Court observed that ISKCON Mumbai’s claim that the Bangalore branch existed and acquired the property was not supported by sufficient evidence. The Court noted that the documents relied upon by ISKCON Mumbai were either manipulated or did not conclusively prove their claim.

Flowchart of the Case

Impact and Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision brings closure to a long-standing and contentious dispute between ISKCON Mumbai and ISKCON Bangalore. The judgment clarifies the ownership of the Schedule ‘A’ property in favor of ISKCON Bangalore, providing them with legal certainty and the ability to manage their affairs without interference from ISKCON Mumbai.

The decision also has broader implications for the ISKCON community. It reinforces the principle that registered societies are independent legal entities with the right to own and manage their properties. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal formalities and maintaining accurate records when acquiring and managing properties.

Furthermore, the judgment highlights the significance of the BDA Act and the Karnataka Societies Registration Act in governing the allotment and ownership of land by religious organizations in Karnataka. It clarifies that only societies registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act are eligible for bulk land allotment under Section 38B of the BDA Act.

Sentiment Analysis

The overall sentiment of the judgment can be categorized as neutral. The Supreme Court’s decision is primarily focused on resolving a legal dispute based on factual evidence and applicable laws. While the outcome is favorable to ISKCON Bangalore and unfavorable to ISKCON Mumbai, the judgment itself does not express any explicit positive or negative opinions about either party. The Court’s role is to impartially assess the evidence and apply the law to the facts, which it has done in a neutral and objective manner.

References

• K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan1 [(2021) 10 SCC 777]
• Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana [(2016) 12 SCC 288]
• Societies Registration Act, 1860
• Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
• Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960
• Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976
• Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
• Income Tax Act, 1961