High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Institute for Inner Studies & Others
Versus
Charlotte Anderson & Others
CS(OS) 2252 of 2011 & I.A. Nos. 14617 of 2011, 18553 of 2011, 20143 of 2011, 20144 of 2011, 20167 of 2011, 20762 of 2011, 448 of 2012 & 15808 of 2012
Decided On : 10-01-2014
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The plaintiffs, (ten in numbers) have filed the present suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction alongwith damages against the defendants in order to restrain the defendants from carrying out activities of spreading Pranic Healing teachings, techniques, practices and courses, or any other techniques, practices, courses and other teachings invented by the Master Choa Kok Sui (“Master”) and organizing and continuing to organize workshops, training programmes, seminars in relation to Pranic Healing without authorization from the plaintiffs.
2. Plaintiffs’ Case
i. Plaintiff No.1 is a company incorporated in Philippines under and in accordance with the provisions of the Corporation Code of Philippines. Plaintiff No.1 was established by Late Samson Lim Choachuy (Legal Name), reversed as Master Choa Kok Sui (hereinafter referred to as Master) on 27th April, 1987 to spread Pranic Healing, Arhatic Yoga, Inner Teachings and Practices globally. The plaintiff No.1 is the head institution which controls the functioning of plaintiff Nos.2 to 3 and also the functioning of plaintiff No.4 to 6 established in India.
ii. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the Master is a world renowned authority in the field of Pranic Healing and Esoteric Sciences, who adapted and systematized the ancient science of Pranic Healing. The Master was a spiritual guru, and an internationally read author of numerous books and manuals on the subject of Pranic Healing. The Master established plaintiff No.1 with primary objective to engage in and carry on business of distribution, publishing books and printed material, to conduct workshops, seminars, lectures on Pranic Healing and Esoteric Sciences across the globe.
iii. The plaintiff No.2 is the organization authorized by the plaintiff No.1 to issue licenses and certificates to other affiliates/institutions/organizations/ teachers to spread teachings of Pranic Healing all around the world.
iv. Plaintiff No.3 is a company incorporated in Philippines by the Master on 23rd July, 1990 in order to spread teachings of Modern Pranic Healing in the developing countries and poorer areas. The function of the plaintiff No.3 is to organize and provide training programmes, seminars and teachings and to disseminate books, pamphlets and training materials relating thereto, to put up and maintain charitable centres for meditation and Pranic Healing, to extend relief to the distressed, especially to the poor and under privileged and in pursuit of the foregoing objectives “to undertake, support and assist related activities, movements and projects, on its own or in cooperation or coordination with other persons, association, entities, agencies and instrumentalities, whether private or public”. Plaintiff No.3 issues guidelines for the functioning of plaintiff No.4 and is also the majority shareholder of plaintiff No.5.
v. The plaintiff No.4 is a public charitable trust, which was established by the Master on 21st January, 1999 in Bangalore to assist the defendant No.2 in acting as a coordinating body for all Pranic Healing activities in the entire Indian Sub-Continent and to collect royalties due from the various trusts established in India under the affiliation of the plaintiff No.3.
vi. The plaintiff No.4 was earlier authorized by the plaintiff No.1 to publish all the books and CDs on Pranic Healing in India, which were sold to the defendant No.2, which in turn sold them to various state level foundations established all over India by the defendant No.2 under the affiliation of the plaintiff No.3. It is alleged that the plaintiff No.4 was authorized by the Master to publish some of the books authored by the Master. Royalties from different state level Pranic Healing Foundations established in India were paid to the defendant No.2, which in turn paid a portion to the plaintiff No.4, which collected the same on behalf of the plaintiff No.3.
vii. Plaintiff No.5 is a private limited co
Eastern Book Company v. DB Modak, 2008(1) SCC 1
Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd.
Academy of General Education, Manipal and Another v Malini Mallya
Exphar S.A & Anr v.Eupharma Laboratories Ltd.
State Trading Corporation of India Limited v. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh (DB)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.