Dismissed

Sri Gaudiya Math Devotees v. Sri Sachdananda Brahmachari

Madras HC6 Nov 2014OSA/371/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an original side appeal challenging an order that substituted one member in a committee constituted under a consent order to manage a religious mat. The court held the variation required no interference, stating that any grievance should be addressed via a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

The original side appeal was disposed of with directions to prefer a fresh application for reconstitution of the committee if grievances persist.

Sri Gaudiya Math Devotees Vs Sri Sachdananda Brahmachari — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

O.S.A.No.371 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 and 3 of 2014

¶6

Sri Gaudiya Math Devotees Association, Chennai (Reg), rep. by 1.Dr.Debasis Roy, 2.L.R.Karunakaran 3.Man Mohan Mital ...Appellant

¶7

¶8

1.Sachidananda Brahmachari 2.Parameswar Brahmachari 3.Prabhupada Das Brahmachari 4.B.V.Madhusudan Maharaj 5.Lalit Krishna Brahmachari 6.Sujan Krishna Brahmachari 7.Mayaur Sri Chaitanya Math Rep. by its Acharya & General Secretary, B.P.Yati Maharaj, Rep. by Power of Attorney, Sri Gurudas Babaji Maharaj. ...Respondents

¶9

Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules r/w Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal, against the order dated 26.11.2012 made in Application No.4449 of 2012 in C.S.No.899 of 2004, on the file of Original Side of this Court.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.Sundar Narayanan for Mr.R.Sunil Kumar for RR1 to 3

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

: Mr.B.Raviraja for R-4

¶13

: Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for RR5 and 6

¶14

: Mr.N.Sathiyamurthy for R-7.

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶17

In the suit filed qua the functioning and administration of Gaudiya Mutt, interim arrangements were made by the learned Single Judge, vide a consent order dated 21.11.2011, by which a Committee was constituted to look after the affairs, in which original plaintiff no.1 was included, who subsequently expressed his unwillingness to act as such and thereby, the Court, by the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 substituted the said plaintiff no.1 by plaintiff no.3.

¶18

2.The appellant, being the 5^th defendant, seeks disposal of the application filed by him being A.No.4448 of 2012. It is the say of the learned counsel for the appellant that this application has not been disposed of one way or the other, while passing the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 in A.No.4449 of 2012. A perusal of Application No.4448 of 2012 shows that the prayer made was to reconstitute the Committee formed by the Court on 21.11.2011 by appointing individuals from the Society, who are eminent citizens and willing to discharge the duties honorarily. This prayer is identical to the prayer made in A.No.2552 of 2012 filed by the plaintiffs, which application was disposed of.

¶19

3.In our view, there is really no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is as an interim arrangement made by the Court to look after the affairs of the Mutt. May be that no formal order has been passed in A.No.4448 of 2012, but the order dated 21.11.2011 already stands varied by the impugned order. The new arrangement arising from the impugned order has been in force for about two years.

¶20

4.We are, thus, of the view that the appropriate course of action, in case of any grievance of the appellant / 5th defendant, with the functioning of this Committee, would be to prefer a fresh application bringing the facts to light before the learned Single Judge, according to which, there is need for once again reconstitution of the Committee formulated by the Court. It would be open to the appellant to incorporate the materials forming subject matter of Application No.4448 of 2012 and the subsequent materials, which are relevant for the purpose.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

5.In view of our aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant states that A.No.4448 of 2012 may stand withdrawn and he would prefer a fresh application in terms of aforesaid.

¶23

6.Original Side Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. stand closed.

¶24

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side Section,
High Court, Chennai.
1 CC to Mr.Usha Raman, Advocate SR.No. 53223
1 CC to Mr.GR.Subramaniam, Advocate SR.No. 53182
1 CC to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate SR.No. 52790
1 CC to Mr.B.Ravi Raja, Advocate SR.No. 52599
O.S.A.No.371 of 2013
and
Connected MPs
LRS (CO)
PSI (18.11.2014)

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Sri Gaudiya Math Devotees v. Sri Sachdananda Brahmachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gaudiya Math Devotees v. Sri Sachdananda Brahmachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Institute of Technology Vs 1. Union of India Rep. by Its

Vs Indian Institute Oftech.

Dr.G.Muthuveerappan Vs 1) the Chairman, Board of

E.Seshan Vs Lakshminarayan IFS

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Vs Mohan Varghese Chunkath

L.Amudha Vs the State of Tn. Rep.by