Supreme Court bench split, revives Mumbai claim on Bengaluru Iskcon temple case

NEW DELHI: On a long standing litigation between Mumbai and Bengaluru factions of Iskcon over control of Bengaluru temple, Supreme Court had kept the verdict reserved for more than a year and gave judgment favouring the Bengaluru branch in May just prior to the retirement of presiding judge Justice A S Oka. The bench of Justices Oka and A G Masih had set aside Karnataka High Court's detailed judgment in May 2011 giving control of the Bengaluru temple to the Mumbai branch. High Court had quashed the trial court decree of April 2009 which was in favour of the Bengaluru faction. After 14 years of the HC verdict and six months of Supreme Court judgment, pronounced a week before Justice Oka's retirement, the parties are now almost back to square one as a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and A G Masih (who was part of the bench led by Justice Oka) delivered a split verdict on the Mumbai branch's plea for review of the May 16 judgment. Justice Maheshwari found that the Mumbai branch has made out a case for review of the judgment. In his two sentence order, he said, "Applications for listing the review petitions in open court are allowed. Notice be issued to the parties." This would mean Justice Maheshwari felt that the Mumbai branch should be allowed to argue its case in open court pointing out the "error apparent" in the judgment. On the other hand, Justice Masih said, "After having carefully gone through the review petitions, the judgment under review and the material annexed therewith, I am satisfied there is no error apparent on the face of record or any merit in the review petitions, warranting reconsideration of the judgment impugned.

The review petitions are, accordingly, dismissed." "In view of the divergent views... the review petitions be placed before the CJI for directions and to do the needful," the bench then said. Iskcon-Mumbai had consistently maintained that the Bengaluru faction had never functioned as an independent entity and had always operated under the Mumbai branch, and hence, the management of the temple vested with the Mumbai faction. But the trial court had allowed the Bengaluru branch's suit, and given a decree in its favour over the management of the temple affairs. HC had set aside the decree and ruled that the Bengaluru branch functioned under the overarching control of Mumbai group.