Madras High Court
Capt.Dr.Balaram Biswakumar vs The Grand Lodge Of India
A.No.2296 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
22.07.2025 08.08.2025
CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
A.No.2296 of 2025
in
C.S.D. No.55987 of 2025
1.Capt.Dr.Balaram Biswakumar
2.Major Dr.D.Raja
3.Bharat Venkat Epur … Applicants/Plaintiffs
vs.
1.The Grand Lodge of India,
Free Masons Hall,
Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.
2.Supreme Council 33 of the Ancient and Accepted Rite for India,
Rep., by Grand Secretary General,
Freemasons Hall,
Damodardas Sukhadwala Road,
Opposite: Sterling Theatre,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
3.Grand Council of the Order of the Allied
Masonic Degrees in India,
Rep., by Grand Secretary,
Freemasons Hall,
14, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore,
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm )
A.No.2296 of 2025
Chennai – 600 008.
4.Grand Council of the Order of Royal and Select Masters in India,
Rep., by Grand Recorder,
Freemasons Hall, 14, Ethiraj Salai,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
5.Grand Court of the Masonic Order of Athelstan in India and its
Provinces and Courts Overseas,
Rep., by Grand Secretary, Freemasons Hall,
14, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore
Chennai – 600 008.
6.Region of India,
The Worshipful Society of free Masons, Rough Masons,
Wallers, Slaters, Paviors, Plaisterers and Bricklayers
(The Operatives),
Rep., by Regional Clerk, Freemasons Hall,
14, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore
Chennai – 600 008.
7.Province of South and South East Asia,
Grand Council of Knight Masons,
Rep., by Provincial Grand Secretary,
Freemasons Hall,
14, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore
Chennai – 600 008.
8.India District No.62,
Grand College of Holy Royal Arch Knight Templar
Priests and Order of Holy Wisdom,
Rep., by District Recorder Mr.Ashok Gopalan,
No.5, Maraimalai Adigal Street,
Razack Garden Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600106.
9.Province of India,
Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia,
Rep., by Provincial Secretary Mr.Ashok Gopalan,
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm )
A.No.2296 of 2025
No.5, Maraimalai Adigal Street,
Razack Garden, Arumbakkam,
Chennai – 600 106.
10.Garuda Temple No.6,
The August Order of Light,
Rep., by Registrar,
Freemasons Hall,
14, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore
Chennai – 600 008.
11.District Grand Senatus of Southern India,
Ancient and Masonic Order of the Scarlet Cord of the
British Isles and its District and Consistories Overseas,
Rep., by District Grand Recorder,
Freemasons Hall,
14, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore
Chennai – 600 008.
12.Grand Conclave in India,
Rep., by Grand Recorder,
Freemasons Hall,
14, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore
Chennai – 600 008.
13.The Grand Royal and Select Masters in India,
Rep., by Grand Recorder,
Freemasons Hall,
14, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore
Chennai – 600 008. … Respondents/Defendants
For Applicant : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.C.T.Mohan Sr., Counsel for
Mr.K.A.Ramakrishnan for R1
Mr.S.Siva Shanmugam for RR2,3,5 to 10
3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm )
A.No.2296 of 2025
ORDER
This Application had been filed to grant leave to the applicants/plaintiffs to sue all the respondents/defendants before this Court.
2.Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr.C.T.Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.A.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.Siva Shanmugam learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3, 5 to 10.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that since various defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court and that the first and second defendants alone are functioning outside the jurisdiction of this Court and that the cause of action for initiating the Suit arose on 07.12.2024 within the jurisdiction of this Court, it would be necessary to grant leave to sue the respondents/defendants. He would submit that the applicants are members of the first defendant and the circular issued on 05.09.2024 and reiterated by the Grandmaster of the first defendant on 07.12.2024 within the jurisdiction of this Court causes grave prejudice to the applicants. He would submit that the said circular would affect the membership of the applicants with respondents/defendants 2 to 13. He would 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm ) A.No.2296 of 2025 submit that the Madurai Bench of this High Court had also entertained a Writ Petition filed by the certain of the aggrieved members which itself would show that the Suit is maintainable within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, he prays this Court to grant leave as prayed for.
4. Countering his arguments, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first defendant would submit that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. He would submit that the circular was issued by the first defendant at New Delhi and the statement made by the Grandmaster for implementing the said circular was made at Nandambakkam, which is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, he would submit that the application itself is liable to be rejected.
5. He would further submit that a clever drafting of the plaint cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court. He would further submit that certain of the respondents/defendants had sent mail to the first defendant and a reading of the mail would show that the said defendants are not situated in the address given by the plaintiff. He would further distinguish the jurisdiction under Article 226 and the jurisdiction vested with this Court under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act. He would further submit that the circular that had been 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm ) A.No.2296 of 2025 issued is in consonance with the bye-laws, Book of Constitution of the first defendant. He would further submit that the applicants being the members of the first defendant are bound by its Constitution. In support of such contention, he had also relied upon various judgments on that aspect. He would further submit that the applicants' residence cannot give rights to a cause of action for them to institute the Suit before this Court. It is only the defendants' address which is more pertinent for a jurisdiction to confer jurisdiction of the Court. He would submit that the defendants 2 to 13 are not necessary parties to the Suit, as they are neither the daughter lodges of the first defendant nor are they bound by the constitution of the first defendant. He would submit that they are all independent Masonic lodges having their own charter and constitution. He would submit that they are neither necessary parties nor proper parties for adjudication of the lis as claimed by the applicants in the Suit and they have been impleaded only to cleverly plead that this Court has a jurisdiction to decide the issue. On the principle of forum conveniens, he had also referred to various other judgments.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm ) A.No.2296 of 2025
7. The suit had been instituted for declaratory reliefs as against the first defendant and for injunction restraining the first defendant from in any manner interfering the functioning of the defendants 2 to 11. The cause of action that had been pleaded is that on 07.12.2024, when the newly installed Grand Master had made an oral statement at Chennai Trade Centre, Nandambakkam, with reference to a circular dated 05.09.2024. A reading of the plaint would show that the first defendant under its ambit has 474 craft lodges of which 180 lodges functions in South India. The first defendant functions in consonance with its Constitution. A circular seems to have been issued on 05.09.2024 by the first defendant at New Delhi indicating that any of its membership of members who are the members of other Masonic lodges was irregular had such membership being without the permission of the Grandmaster and hence, action was sought to be initiated against such members by issuing separate notices to them.
8.It is also admitted in the plaint that the plaintiffs are also members of other lodges namely the defendants 2 to 11 and they are at the risk of being expelled pursuant to the circular dated 05.09.2024, which had been reiterated 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm ) A.No.2296 of 2025 by the Grandmaster of the first defendant on 07.12.2024. It has also been pleaded that the circular issued would be contrary to the principles of Free Masonry and Article 19(c) of the Constitution of India.
9.From the pleadings it could be seen that the defendants 2 to 13 are not associated with the first defendant as a craft lodge, they are independent Masonic bodies, which are not governed by the Constitution of the first defendant. Further as pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first defendant that the circular had been issued by the first defendant at New Delhi. Further, the circular would indicate that independent action would be initiated against the members, who had been in violation of the constitution of the first defendant. An attempt to bring the said circular to be coming within the jurisdiction of this Court, is by taking into account the statement issued by the Grand Master on 07.12.2024 at Chennai Trade Centre at Nandambakkam. Incidentally the said location does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, whether even assuming that 07.12.2024, statement made at the aforesaid place in respect to the circular dated 05.09.2024 would confer jurisdiction, such statement having been made outside the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court is of the considered view that 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm ) A.No.2296 of 2025 no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the plaint.
10.Further, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that the principles of Article 226 (2) conferring the jurisdiction cannot be made applicable to a case which squarely falls within the clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act which confers original jurisdiction on this Court.
11.Even assuming there is a part of cause of action that had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, leave cannot be for the matter of asking be granted and it would also have to be governed by the principle of forum conveniens. The said view had been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment in the case of Unicorn Maritime (India) Ltd Vs Valency International reported in 2021 2 CTC 31. As the circular dated 05.09.2024, had been issued by the first defendant at New Delhi and the statement made by the Grand Master of the first defendant on 07.12.2024, was made at Nandambakkam, both the said cause of action has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence, this Court is of the considered view that 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm ) A.No.2296 of 2025 the plaint as filed by the applicants cannot be entertained. As a consequence, Registry is directed to return the plaint with liberty to the applicants/plaintiffs to present the same before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
08.08.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet :Yes / No Pbn 10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm ) A.No.2296 of 2025 K.KUMARESH BABU.J., Pbn Pre-Delivery Order in A.No.2296 of 2025 in C.S.D.No.55987 of 2025 08.08.2025 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 02:09:31 pm )