Bangalore District Court
New Life Ministries In India Trust vs The Ministry Of Home Affairs on 8 July, 2025
1 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT
KABC010236092018
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70)
:Present:
Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A., LL.B(Hon`s), LL.M
LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH 70)
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2025
O.S. No.6184/2018
Plaintiff:- NEW LIFE MINISTRIES IN INDIA
TRUST
Having its central office At
No. 15, 8th G street,
7th cross, Jogupalya
Bengaluru 560 008
And Head office at:
Gospel Home
Behind Travelers Bangalow
Chickaballapur
Chickaballapur District,
Karnataka State
Represented by its Founder trustee
Sri. K.V. Albert
s/o Venkatappa
Aged about 55 years.
(Sri Abilash.G., Advocate for plaintiff)
2 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT
- Vs -
Defendants:- 1. THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Government of India
NDCC-II Building
First Floor (FCRA wing)
Opposite to Jantar Mantar
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001
And its subordinates
Represented by its Secretary
2. THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Government of India
E and F wing, 7th floor,
Kendriya Sadan
Koramangala,
Bengaluru 560034
And its subordinates
Represented by its Secretary
3. The Principal Secretary
Department of Home
Government of Karnataka
2nd floor, Vidhana Soudha
Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bengaluru 560003
4. The Directorate of Enforcement
BMTC Building
Shantinagar, K.H. Road,
Bengaluru 560027
And its subordinate
Represented by its Authorized officer
5. Department of Income tax
The commissioner of Income tax
3 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT
Central Revenue Building No.1,
Queens Road
Bengaluru 560001
6. The Inspector General of police
Millers Road
Vasanthnagar
Bengaluru 560 052
7. The Superintendent of police
Chikkaballapura
Hyedrabad National Highway-7
Chikkaballapura 562103
8. Sri. K.Ravi Kumar
Son of late Krishnappa
Aged about 35 year
Amish Gideon House
Near K.V campus
Chikkaballapur 562 101
9. Sri. Thyagaraj
Son of Muniyappa
Aged about 40 years
Kondenahalli village and post,
Shiddlaghatta Taluk
And district 562 103
10. Sri Munikrishna
Son of Muniyappa
Aged about 46 years
Keshavapura Village,
Keshavara post,
Shiddlaghatta Taluka
And district 562 103
4 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT
Date of institution of the suit: 24.08.2018
For declaration &
Nature of the suit: permanent injunction
Date of commencement of 19.04.2023
recording of evidence:
Date on which the judgment was
8.7.2025
pronounced;
Total duration: Years Months Days
06 10 15
JUDGMENT
The instant suit is instituted by a public charitable institution named New Life Ministries in India, a trust duly registered under the Indian Trusts Act and having its central office at Bengaluru. The suit is brought under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking declaratory reliefs and permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the administration and functioning of the said trust.
2. The plaintiff asserts that it is a bona fide 5 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT charitable trust registered as Document No. 16/1998-99 in Book IV in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkaballapura. The trust, according to the plaint, is engaged in multifarious charitable and philanthropic activities aimed at uplifting the poor, destitute, and marginalised sections of society, without any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, or religion.
3. The plaint proceeds to state that the trust deed was duly amended on 20.08.2011 through a resolution passed by the trustees and registered as Document No. CKB-4-00152/2011-12. The amendments declared that the trust was "purely charitable in nature and not community-based," and that "no community- based activities shall be promoted under its aegis."
4. Subsequently, a Special General Body Meeting was convened on 21.01.2014, wherein further amendments were effected and registered as Document No. CKB-4-00293/2013-14. The plaint states that the trust has received recognition from the Income Tax Department, having been granted exemption under 6 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and registration under Section 12A r/w 12AA.
5. The trust operates a bank account bearing No. 64058113411 at the State Bank of India, Chikkaballapura Branch. The trustees, in their personal capacities, also maintain separate bank accounts. The plaint further refers to filing of nil income tax returns by the trust and income returns of the trustees.
6. In support of its charitable activities, the plaintiff trust has annexed photographs and audit reports evidencing its functioning. Additionally, the trust claims endorsement from Hope and Help International, a US- based NGO, which has extended financial and operational support. The trust is also registered with the Government of India's NITI Aayog under the DARPAN Portal and assigned Unique ID No. KA/2017/0178547.
7. The plaintiff submits that the defendants-- alleged to be public servants, local officials, and politically motivated individuals--are attempting to 7 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT interfere unlawfully with the affairs of the trust. In particular, the plaint alleges that defendants 1 to 7, in active collusion with defendants 8 to 10, are wielding political influence to defame the trust and are obstructing its operations. The plaint further states that the FCRA registration application has been unjustifiably withheld by defendants 1 and 2.
8. The plaint describes multiple instances of threats, intimidation, and trespass by the said defendants and their subordinates, particularly on 13.08.2018, where certain officials allegedly attempted to forcibly seal the premises of the trust, accompanied by demands for extortion. These acts, it is stated, continued even during the pendency of the suit, culminating in a CBI-led raid on 22.01.2020 under the pretext of CBI RC04(A)/2020/CBI/ACB/BLR. The plaint avers that this raid was conducted without judicial sanction, behind the plaintiff's back, and in gross violation of natural justice.
9. The plaintiff claims that the trust has suffered irreparable damage and disruption to its charitable 8 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT activities and is unable to function due to continuous interference. It asserts that the conduct of the defendants constitutes an infringement of its constitutional rights and that no remedy lies except through this Court under Section 92 of CPC.
10. The plaintiff has accordingly sought for a declaration that it and its trustees are not liable to the defendants; perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with its affairs; injunction restraining freezing or interference with its bank accounts; direction to grant FCRA registration; Police protection; and Other consequential reliefs and costs.
11. The written statement filed by Defendant No.2, who is a subordinate officer under the Ministry of Home Affairs, begins by raising strong preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit. This defendant emphatically asserts that the plaint is devoid of substance, is speculative in nature, and has been instituted with the sole motive of stalling legitimate and lawful governmental functions. It is contended that no 9 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT cause of action has been disclosed as against this defendant, and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine.
12. The defendant begins by objecting to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit, stating that no actionable grievance is shown against Defendant No.2. The plaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, in particular the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, who is the competent authority in matters relating to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). No statutory notice has been served upon this defendant, which is a mandatory pre-condition in suits involving the Government or its instrumentalities.
13. With respect to the nature of functions performed by this office, it is clarified that the defendant No.2 discharges functions under the Census Act, 1948, and Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, including demographic data collection and analysis. The Defendant No.2 is not administratively or legally connected to any of the affairs of the plaintiff trust, and 10 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT therefore, has no role to play either in granting FCRA registration or interfering with charitable activities.
14. The defendant, in a categorical rebuttal, denies all allegations made in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, and 15 of the plaint insofar as they pertain to tax exemptions, administrative interference, or freezing of accounts. It is submitted that these matters lie within the purview of other departments or authorities. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of these averments.
15. It is specifically denied that any official of Defendant No.2 has ever interfered with or visited the plaintiff trust or its premises. The plaintiff has been called upon to produce documentary proof or particulars of the persons alleged to have acted under this defendant's command. In the absence of such particulars, the allegations are termed reckless, defamatory, and liable to be struck off as scandalous.
16. The invocation of Section 92 CPC against this defendant is stated to be entirely misconceived, since this 11 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT defendant neither administers the trust nor claims any right, title, or interest in its affairs. It is stated that the plaintiff has erroneously dragged in this office to delay other pending proceedings. Accordingly, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs, stating that the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of law and are aimed at obstructing lawful and regulatory oversight by public authorities.
17. The written statement filed on behalf of Defendants Nos. 3, 6, and 7--who are public officials of the State Government and police administration--has been filed through the Office of the District Government Pleader, Bengaluru Urban District, pursuant to Government Order No. HD 41 CID 2017(P-1) dated 24.09.2018 and its Corrigendum dated 09.11.2018. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chikkaballapur District, has been authorised as the litigation conducting officer in the matter.
18. At the threshold, the defendants raise a statutory bar under Section 170(1) of the Karnataka 12 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT Police Act, which mandates prior Government sanction before initiation of any civil or criminal proceeding against police personnel for acts done in the discharge of their official duties. It is submitted that no such prior sanction has been obtained by the plaintiff, and therefore, the suit as against these defendants is liable to be dismissed outright on this ground alone.
19. It is further contended that the suit is vexatious, misconceived, and devoid of merit, and is filed with the oblique intent of stalling lawful investigation. The plaint does not disclose any valid or enforceable cause of action, and the court fees paid is inadequate and improper. In response to the specific allegations of threats, interference, and extortion narrated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint, these defendants categorically deny the same as being false, fabricated, and lacking any supporting evidence. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
20. With respect to the investigation under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), it is 13 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT submitted that the plaintiff trust has violated several provisions of the FCRA, 2010, by diverting substantial sums of foreign funds into the personal accounts of trustees and their family members. Based on a reference made by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Government of Karnataka accorded sanction under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 on 03.11.2018, authorising the CBI to investigate allegations of misuse of foreign contributions. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), being a central agency, is competent to conduct the investigation. The role of these defendants is limited to administrative coordination and law enforcement within their jurisdiction.
21. It is further submitted that the Founder Trustee of the plaintiff trust had voluntarily recorded a statement on 08.08.2018 before the designated officer. Thus, the trust was well aware of the investigation proceedings. The search and seizure operation conducted by the CBI on 22.01.2020 was not arbitrary, but legally sanctioned as part of an ongoing investigation into grave 14 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT financial irregularities.
22. The defendants contend that the plaintiff has unclean hands and is attempting to cloak regulatory violations under the garb of charity. The allegations in paragraph 22 of the plaint, suggesting extortion and threats at the time of visitation, are wholly unsubstantiated. The suit is a ploy to obstruct legitimate law enforcement functions, particularly to paralyse the investigation into the alleged siphoning of foreign funds. Lastly, it is reiterated that the court has no jurisdiction to interfere with investigations ordered in accordance with law, and that the plaintiff's remedy, if any, lies before the competent forum dealing with FCRA violations or under public law remedies such as Article 226. In conclusion, these defendants seek dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs, to uphold the sanctity of due process, deter abuse of judicial process, and prevent obstruction to law enforcement agencies.
23. Based on the above pleadings and rival contentions, my Learned Predecessor in Office has 15 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT framed the following Issues and additional Issues.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that it is a registered trust as on the date of the suit and is entitled to seek perpetual injunction against the defendants as pleaded in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants Nos. 1 to 7 have no authority to freeze the bank accounts of the plaintiff as per Schedule 'B'?
3. Whether defendants Nos. 3 to 7 prove that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable as pleaded in paragraphs 2 and 5 of their written statement?
4. Whether the defendants prove that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as pleaded in the written statement?
5. What are the reliefs the parties are entitled to?
6. What order or decree?
24. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. In spite of availing sufficient 16 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT opportunities the defendants neither lead any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence.
25. Heard and perused the materials available on record.
26. On the basis of the evidence available on record my finding on the above Issues are as under;
Issue No.1 : This issue is answered
partly in the affirmative
insofar as the plaintiff is
a registered trust, but in
the negative insofar as
entitlement to perpetual
injunction is concerned.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 and 6: As per final order on
the following;
REASONS
27. Issue No.1: The plaintiff has laid considerable emphasis upon the foundational legitimacy of its existence as a registered public charitable trust. The plaint avers that the plaintiff trust, by name New Life 17 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT Ministries in India, was registered as a public trust vide Document No. 16/1998-99, Book IV, before the Sub- Registrar, Chikkaballapur, and subsequently amended through registered documents on 22.08.2011 and 21.01.2014.
28. The plaintiff further claims exemption under Section 80G and registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, Additional documents such as audited accounts, bank statements, Nil income tax returns, and letters of endorsement from international humanitarian bodies have been annexed to demonstrate the bona fides and compliance of the trust.
29. However, the assertion that the trust was "registered and in continuous existence" as on the date of the suit, while technically supported by documentation, cannot ipso-facto entitle the plaintiff to the grant of a perpetual injunction, which is an equitable remedy governed not only by the legal status of the entity but also by its conduct, the existence of legal right threatened, and absence of alternative remedy. 18 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT
30. It is pertinent to observe that the plaintiff examined only PW1 and marked certain documents. No other independent witnesses were examined. Crucially, defendants have not been cross-examined, nor has the plaintiff led convincing evidence to demonstrate a clear and present threat to its rights justifying the grant of perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act.
31. Furthermore, as will be discussed in subsequent issues, the interference alleged by the plaintiff arises from investigative proceedings initiated under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), based on sanction granted by the competent government. In such a scenario, the claim that the plaintiff is being unlawfully interfered with stands diluted.
32. Accordingly, while the registration of the trust as on the date of suit is established, the entitlement to a perpetual injunction is not made out either in law or on facts. This issue is answered partly in the affirmative insofar as the plaintiff is a registered trust, but in the 19 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT negative insofar as entitlement to perpetual injunction is concerned.
33. Issue No.2: The plaintiff has alleged that defendants Nos. 1 to 7 have acted without jurisdiction in freezing the bank accounts of the trust and its trustees. The said bank accounts are the relief claimed is to prevent such freezing without due process of law.
34. However, a close scrutiny of the written statements and supporting material placed by the defendants reveals that the alleged freezing or interference stems from an investigation initiated under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010, based on a reference made by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the subsequent sanction issued by the Government of Karnataka under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, permitting the CBI to investigate.
35. The written statement of defendants Nos. 3, 6 and 7 clearly aver that large sums of foreign funds were 20 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT allegedly diverted into personal accounts of trustees and their family members. It is also contended that further investigation necessitated freezing of accounts to prevent dissipation of funds. These acts fall squarely within the statutory powers of the investigating agency.
36. The plaintiff has not placed any document to show that the alleged freezing was done without any authority of law. No challenge has been made to the sanction granted to CBI, nor to the legality of the search and seizure proceedings carried out pursuant to judicial orders in CBI Case No. RC04(A)/2020/CBI/ACB/BLR. The plaintiff's contention that Section 92 CPC bars such actions is misplaced. Section 92 governs civil suits for relief against public trusts and does not bar statutory or criminal investigations by competent authorities. Hence, this Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the freezing of bank accounts, if any, was without authority or jurisdiction. Hence, issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
37. Issue No.3: The maintainability of the present 21 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT suit has been seriously questioned by defendants Nos. 3, 6, and 7, who have placed reliance on various statutory immunities and procedural lapses. Specifically, these defendants have contended that the suit has been instituted without obtaining prior sanction of the Government under Section 170(1) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, which is a statutory pre-condition before any civil or criminal action can be initiated against public servants in respect of acts purportedly done in discharge of official duties. The plaintiff has not issued any statutory notice to these defendants before initiating the present proceedings, which is argued to be fatal in law. The CBI investigation was initiated based on valid government sanction under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, and the acts complained of fall within the scope of legitimate investigative action.
38. On a careful consideration of the above contentions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the allegations made in the plaint largely relate to acts done by governmental authorities and law 22 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT enforcement agencies in connection with an ongoing investigation under the FCRA.
39. The acts such as search, seizure, or freezing of accounts--even if uncomfortable for the plaintiff--appear to be in pursuance of a larger inquiry involving foreign funding and statutory compliance. Such acts, unless shown to be ultra vires or in clear abuse of power, cannot be subjected to injunctive reliefs through civil suits.
40. The plaintiff has not challenged the legality of the Government Order dated 03.11.2018 granting sanction to the CBI, nor is there any pleading impeaching the legality of the warrant under which the CBI search was conducted. Furthermore, no leave of the court under Section 92 CPC was sought to sue the defendants in their official capacity, which raises a significant procedural irregularity. No specific act of mala-fide or personal animosity by the said defendants has been credibly pleaded or proved. The mere invocation of an alleged conspiracy, without particulars, falls short of the standard required in law. In light of the above analysis, 23 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT this Court is constrained to hold that the suit as framed and filed is not maintainable as against defendants Nos. 3 to 7. The same is barred by statutory provisions and lacks procedural propriety. Hence, this issue is answered in the affirmative.
41. Issue No.4: It has been contended by the defendants that this Hon'ble Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, in view of the statutory framework governing the acts impugned by the plaintiff. The following contentions have been advanced the investigation into violations of the FCRA, including the seizure of documents and freezing of accounts, is governed by central legislation, and falls within the jurisdiction of designated courts and authorities under the FCRA and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff would effectively amount to a judicial interdiction into the functioning of an ongoing CBI investigation, which is impermissible in a civil suit. That the plaintiff ought to have approached appropriate fora, including the High Court under Article 24 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT 226 or the competent criminal court, rather than instituting a suit for perpetual injunction against law enforcement agencies.
42. Upon perusal of the plaint and the nature of reliefs claimed, it is evident that the plaintiff is seeking wide-ranging declarations and perpetual injunctions not only against private individuals but also against senior government functionaries, including police officers and central investigating officers. The thrust of the suit is directed against investigative action initiated by the competent authorities. This Court, being a civil court of original jurisdiction, is ill-equipped to examine or interfere with such statutory functions.
43. Moreover, the Civil Procedure Code does not contemplate the grant of injunctions to restrain lawful investigations unless clear and manifest abuse of power is demonstrated--which, in this case, has not been established. The remedy under Section 92 CPC is limited to suits concerning mismanagement of public trusts and does not extend to controlling or fettering lawful statutory 25 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT inquiries. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that it does not possess jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought, particularly in respect of defendants exercising statutory powers under central enactments. Hence, This issue is answered in the affirmative.
44. Issue No.5: In light of the above findings the plaintiff has failed to establish any actionable cause for the grant of perpetual injunction as prayed. The acts of the defendants, being part of lawful investigation under competent authority, cannot be interdicted by civil proceedings of this nature. The suit is also defective in law, being procedurally barred and improperly framed.
45. Thus, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff trust. On the contrary, the defendants are entitled to a decree of dismissal of the suit with costs, so as to prevent the abuse of judicial process and discourage unwarranted civil litigation that impedes governmental functioning. This issue is answered accordingly.
46. Issue No.6: In view of the above findings on 26 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT all issues, this Court finds no merit in the present suit. The suit is not only legally untenable but also appears to be an attempt to shield the trust from statutory scrutiny and to frustrate a pending investigation through collateral proceedings. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed in its entirety, with costs. Hence, in view of this I proceed to pass the following ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff trust is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree in the matter
accordingly.
(Dictated to the SG-I, directly on the computer, thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 08th day of June, 2025) (Shirin Javeed Ansari) LXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
A N N E X U R E List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
PW.1 : Prem Albert s/o K.V.Albert List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 GPA
Ex.P.2 Income Tax Returns of the year 2015-16
27 OS No. 6184/2018 JUDGMENT
Ex.P. 3 Copy of the bill dated 14.2.2023
Ex.P. 4 7 pass books of plaintiff, his mother, father and sister membes of the Trust collectively marked as Ex.P.4 List of witnesses examined for defendant: Nil List of documents exhibited for defendant: Nil LXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.