For release
Dear Prabhus, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Report of Supreme Court hearing today.
Bench: Hon’ble Justices Sri Chauhan & Sri Swatanter KumarISKCON Blr counsel: Sri U Lalit ISKCON Mumbai counsel: Sri Abhishek Singhvi.
The hearing began with the judges asking our counsel whether society is registered separately in Blr. Our counsel said yes. The learned judge asked for the registration no. of Blr Society to which our counsel referred the hon’ble judges to the copy of the Bangalore Society’s registration paper with Karnataka Societies Registrar.
The hon’ble judges then asked about the Bombay regn no., to which our counsel replied that Bombay society’s registration no. is F……, registered in Mumbai. The hon’ble judges then asked why the two societies are fighting over the property. Our counsel replied that the issue is a theological dispute.
After Pujya Swami Prabhupada’s time (who established & built up the movement), there were 12 disciples who were appointed as rtviks. But instead of acting as rtviks, they started acting as gurus & acharyas like Swami Prabhupada. Hence there are two schools of thought in ISKCON. One school of thought followed by ISKCON Mumbai is that after Swami Prabhupada, his disciples become gurus & acharyas.
Another school of thought, which is followed by ISKCON Bangalore is that Swami Prabhupada did not appoint any gurus. It is this theological following that ISKCON Mumbai wants to throw out.
Our counsel then pointed out to hon’ble judges that immediately after the HC judgment on 23rd May, on 25th May, ISKCON Mumbai passed a resolution. In the resolution, they appointed a supervisory committee, the activities of which were listed out. The first point was “to look into all the aspects of Deity Worship at the Bangalore Temple”.
This clearly showed that Bombay wanted to all the gurus & acharyas of their society to be worshipped in Bangalore temple. This is against our belief and philosophy. The Mumbai counsel then erroneously said that Blr society is governed by 6 people out of which 4 are family members. Our counsel corrected him that only 2 out of 10 members were related & all others were independent.
Upon hearing & seeing the evidence, the hon’ble judges passed the following judgment: (This is a dictation taken as the judges were dictating. Hence there may be minor changes in wordings. For actual judgment, please refer to website):
It is unfortunate but true that two societies stated to be for the purposes of KC & to advance the cause of KC have chosen to litigate w.r.t its temples at Mumbai & Blr. However, dispute relates to management & properties at Blr. Trial court vide decree …. has decreed in the suit filed by Blr society in favor of the Blr society.
This was set aside by HC vide RFA ….. & suit was dismissed and counter claim was accepted & passed an order restraining Blr society and its office bearers from interfering in the possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. After passing the decree in favor of Bombay society on 23rd May, HC also passed an order on 24th May issuing certain directions wherein certain relief was also given to the Blr society. Having heard and examined bot the learned counsels, we consider that the following orders need to be passed: 1. Issue notice
2. Matter listed for consideration of continuance of interim order after vacation
3. Status quo as of today.
However, Blr society with its office bearers will continue day to day management but no major financial decisions w.r.t Blr society.
We express that learned counsel for both parties shall spend time to amicably resolve the appeal & do expect that this august institutions should not litigate & office bearers shall not interfere in each others affairs.
Ys mpd
Speak Your Mind