Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.40 seconds)
Prasannatma Das vs K.N. Haridasan Nambiar (Dead) on 16 May, 2025 cites

Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah(D)Tr.Lrs vs Muddasani Sarojana on 5 May, 2016

24. Learned counsel submitted that the execution of the sale deed by BDA was not denied in the written statement. As the execution was not denied or disputed, it was not necessary to examine any witness to prove the same as held by this Court in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana2. Learned counsel submitted that the title of the Schedule ‘A’ 2 (2016) 12 SCC 288 Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 17 of 56 property, by virtue of the sale deed, passed on to ISKCON Bangalore. Even the telephone number mentioned on the allotment application dated 5th February 1987 belongs to ISKCON Bangalore. Even the address in the sale deed is that of ISKCON Bangalore. There are several documents that show the purchaser/allottee was ISKCON Bangalore. Even the exemption granted under the provisions of the ULC Act was in favour of the plaintiff - ISKCON Bangalore. Moreover, payments made to the BDA have been recorded in the books of account of ISKCON Bangalore of the year 1987-1988. ISKCON Bangalore had bank accounts in Vysya Bank and Indian Overseas Bank. In the audit of the plaintiffs’ financial statements, Schedule ‘A’ property is shown as a fixed asset of ISKCON Bangalore. Moreover, the funds of ISKCON Bangalore have been spent on the construction of the temple. He pointed out that Schedule ‘A’ property was not registered as required by Section 22B of the MPT Act. He pointed out that the appellant had filed statutory accounts with the Registrar of Societies under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act on 24th September 1987. Learned counsel explained why the plaintiff, ISKCON Bangalore, consolidated its accounts with ISKCON Mumbai until the year 2000. It was submitted that since ISKCON Bangalore was a member of ISKCON Mumbai, there was no need to Civil Appeal Nos.3821-3822 of 2023, etc. Page 18 of 56 file separate income tax returns till 2000. He pointed out the finding of the High Court that, despite having registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ISKCON Bangalore, never availed the benefits under Section 12A. In fact, till the year 2000, the certificate of exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued to the 1st defendant (ISKCON Mumbai) was allowed to be used by all ISKCON centres. Learned counsel pointed out that various donations were mobilised by the plaintiff, locally and from abroad. Some of the donors took advantage of the Section 80G certificate of ISKCON, Mumbai. But it does not make Schedule ‘A’ property the property of ISKCON Mumbai. In any case, the source of funds for acquiring property does not decide the title to the property. He pointed out sources of funds which were available to the plaintiff society at the relevant time. Inviting our attention to the evidence on record, he submitted that there was no evidence to show that the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai existed in Bangalore.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 103 - A Mishra - Full Document
1   2 Next