The provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, particularly Section 25, do not provide an adequate mechanism for adjudication of disputes, and therefore do not impliedly oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

( 1 ) THOUGH this matter was listed for admission, since it involves the only question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court, as the appeal is against the rejection of plaint, under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC, the matter was taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.

( 2 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 questioning the order dated 1st March 2007 passed in O. S. No. 1758/2003 on LA. No. V.

( 3 ) THE Trial Court has allowed the LA. No. V filed under Order 7, Rule 1l (d) of CPC and rejected the plaint holding that, the matter can be inquired by the Registrar under section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as 'act') and not by the Civil Court.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that, 6th plaintiff-society was registered in the year 1978 in the name and style as, International society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON ). Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 and defendant Nos. 1 to 10 are the members of the said society. The said Society having its registered Office at hanuman Temple Compound, Bangalore. Notwithstanding, the registration of the 6th plaintiff's Society, the 1st defendant conducted activities of Movement through the said group without involving the 6th plaintiff or the Governing Body of the 6th plaintiff. That for rising donation the ISKCON, mumbai permitted its Bangalore Branch to use the exemption granted to ISKCON, Mumbai under Section 80g of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Bangalore Branch had a bank account and the 1st defendant was operating the same as a President and the 1st defendant was acting in his capacity as President of Bangalore Branch of ISKCON, mumbai. After registration of the 6th plaintiff, it was not pursuing its objects or functioning according to its rules and regulations in any manner including conducting any meeting either of the Governing Body or the General Body, some leaders in the Movement advised the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and other members of the Governing Body that the 6th plaintiff should not exist as an independent entity, as such existence would affect the growth and integrity of the movement in India. The 1st defendant and the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs had also by then realised that, Srila Prabhupada himself had not thought it fit to have more than one entity in India for propagation of Movement and that they were wrong in establishing 6th plaintiff. They felt that the activity by 6th plaintiff would violate srila Prabhupada's wishes and that was the last thing they being his disciples and humble servants, dated to do. Therefore, the Government body did not carry on any activity through or in respect of 6th plaintiff including holding of meeting of the Governing Body of General Body. The members of the Governing Body individually also did not evince any interest in the working of the 6th plaintiff. The 6th plaintiff stopped functioning in all the respects. There was none to attend even the statutory obligations of the 6th plaintiff. The 1st to 5th plaintiffs did not resign their offices in the Governing Body of the 6th plaintiff, however did not function in their respective offices either, and there having been no general Body other than the 22 members, who constituted the Governing Body and Sri. Bhaktha Dasa Brahmachari, who had subscribed to the memorandum of association, the general Body also did not elect a new Governing Body. 6th plaintiff became non-functional and as good as closed.

( 5 ) IT is also stated that, 1st to 5th plaintiffs had not resigned and gave up their membership of the 6th plaintiff, the Governing Body or the General Body did not have any legal or factual impact or consequence, since the 6th plaintiff had ceased to function. The members of the Governing Body are the only members apart from Sri. Bhakta Dasa Brahmachari, constituting the General Body of the 6th plaintiff, even to this day. He further stated that, 1st defendant did not convene any meeting either of the Governing Body or of the General Bo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document