You can submit your article, report, announcement, ad etc. by mailing to editor@dandavats.com

Supreme Court of India orders in ISKCON vs Madhu case

Monday, 19 December 2011 / Published in Reports / 4,566 views

By Basu Ghosh das

The text here bears out that a “management” (“receivership”) committee has been appointed by the Supreme Court to manage/oversee the affairs of ISKCON Bangalore until the SLP filed by Madhu is disposed of on Feb 15, 2012

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/158142011114122011p.txt

IA 20 IN SLP(C)15814/11
1

ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.2 SECTION IVA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IA 20/2011 in
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).15814/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 23/05/2011 in RFA No.421/2009 of
The HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)

M/S INTERNATIONAL SOC.FOR KRISHNA,BANGALORE Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

M/S INTERNL.STY.FOR KIRSHNA MUMBAI& ORS Respondent(s)

( for vacating stay and office report ))

Date: 14/12/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Uday U. Lalit, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mathai M.Paikaday, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hari Shankar K, Adv.-on-Record.
Mr. Srinivas Raghavan, Adv.
Mr. Ashu Kansal, Adv.
Mr. R.M. Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Krishnan Venogopal, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ekta Kapil, Adv.
Mr. Pratyush Miglani, Adv.
Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Adv.-on-Record.

Mr. P.K. Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debabrta Banerjee, Adv.
R2 Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.
IA 20 IN SLP(C)15814/11
2

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

I.A.20 of 2011, has been filed on behalf of

the respondents, inter alia, for vacating the

interim orders passed by this Court on 6th June,

2011 and 5th July, 2011.

2. The dispute is between two societies having

identical names and claiming to be the owners and

in management of the temple of the International

Society for Krishna Consciousness, Bangalore.

3. By the order dated 6th June, 2011, this

Court while issuing notice and after hearing

learned counsel for both the parties, gave certain

interim directions and one of the directions we are

concerned with reads as follows:-

“…..5. In the
meanwhile,, the parties shall
maintain status quo, as of today.
However, the Bangalore Society
with its present officer bearers
shall continue day-to-day
management of the Society but
would not take any major and
policy decision creating
liabilities of any kind for the
Bangalore Society.”
IA 20 IN SLP(C)15814/11
3

4. The present I.A.20 has been filed for

vacation of the said directions.

5. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the

petitioner-society has been running the affairs of

the temple at Bangalore till date. However, since

a decree has been passed in favour of the

respondent-society, wherein directions have been

given to the petitioners not to interfere with the

possession of the respondent society in the temple

and its properties, we are of the view that some

arrangement has to be made till we can hear out the

Special Leave Petition, for the temple at Bangalore

to be managed in a manner so that there is some

amount of transparency.

6. Having heard Mr. Venugopal, learned senior

counsel for the applicant in I.A.20, and Mr. Lalit,

learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner-society in the Special Leave Petition,

we direct that the Special Leave Petition, which we

are informed is otherwise ready for hearing, be

listed for final hearing on 15th February, 2012, at

the top of the list.

7. In the meantime, in addition to the interim

directions, which had been given in the order of

6th June, 2011, we appoint a Committee to oversee

the management of the temple and its properties.
IA 20 IN SLP(C)15814/11
4

The said Committee shall consist of:-

1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendaran(retd.) as

Chairman.

2. Shri Ananda Thirtha Das, Member.

3. Shri Stoka Krishna Das, Member.

The said Committee shall oversee the management of

the temple and its properties by the petitioner-

society and shall be entitled to advise the said

society on matters relating to the management of

the temple and its properties.

8. The Chairman shall be paid a remuneration of

` One Lakh per month from the temple funds.

9. This order is without prejudice to the

rights and contentions of the parties at the time

of hearing of the Special Leave Petition.

10. The Committee will be at liberty to apply to

this Court in the event it becomes necessary to do

so.

11. The I.A.is disposed of in the above terms.

(Sheetal Dhingra) (Juginder Kaur)
COURT MASTER Assistant Registrar

One comment

  1. 0
    Basu Ghosh Das ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    An explanation of the the Supreme Court (SC) order:

    The Supreme Court of India created an “oversight committee”, more or less “receivership” [dictionary definition of “receiver”: 3 a person or company appointed by a court to manage the financial affairs of a business or person that has gone bankrupt : the company is in the hands of the receivers.]

    The “oversight committee” will consist of 3 members, as mentioned in their order.

    The SC is under NO OBLIGATION to hear ANY case.

    Therefore, “SLPs” – “special leave petitions” – are filed in the SC by parties desiring that their case be heard.

    To date, the SC has NOT agreed to hear Madhu Pandit Das’s appeal of the Karnataka High Court Judgement that went against him on May 23 (declaring that ISKCON Bangalore is a branch of ISKCON Bombay). In the above order, the SC has stated that a final decision on admitting Madhu Pandit Das’s appeal will be declared on Feb 15, 2012.

    In the meantime, until Feb. 15, the appointed committee will manage the affairs of ISKCON Bangalore. The committee has one representative each from ISKCON Bombay and Madhu Pandit Das’s ISKCON Bangalore and is headed by retired SC Judge Ravindran.

    This explanation was first posted on my Facebook page in response to a query from a godsister at Sridham Mayapur who requested I explain the above “in plain English”. Therefore, I think it appropriate to post here as well.

Leave a Reply

TOP