AJENDRAPRASADJI NARENDRAPRASADJI PANDEY versus SWAMI K. NARAYANDASJI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 13-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
AJENDRAPRASADJI NARENDRAPRASADJI PANDEY
v.
SW AMI K. NARA Y ANDASJI AND ORS.
MAY 13, 2005
B
[RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 0.7, R.l/ and 0.39, R. 1 and and 2:
. Removal of appellant from the post of Acharya and appointment of
C another person on the basis of a resolution passed by a religious bo~
Challenge t~Allowed by trial Court-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal,
Held: High Court did not hear the connected appeals together-Had both the
appeals been taken up together, the stand of the parties would have become
clearer-Judgment of the High Court lacks clarity, analysis and precision-
D Hence, remitted to High Co_urt for hearing afresh along with other connected
appeals-Practice and Procedure.
Issuance of Injunction against removal of the appellant-Achary~Held:
While deciding the issue of injunction, Courts have to consider the cumulative
effect of the factors viz. prima facie case, balance of convenience and
E irreparable loss-High Court failed to consider all these factors-Hence;. this
issue also remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.
The questions which arose for determination in these appeals were
as to whether removal of the appellant-Acharya of a religious institution
on the basis of a purported resolution passed by a religious body,
F Satsangha Mahasabha, was valid and also the legality of the appointment
of its successor-Acharya by the same body.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A lot of confusion has been created and requisite care has
G not been taken by the High Court to ensure that all the connected matters
were taken up together for effective adjudication by the High Court. The
impugned judgment which forms the subject matter in the appeal lacks.
clarity, analysis and precision. The basic issues have not been addressed.
On this score alone, High Court is directed to hear the matter afresh along :
H
392
..
'
AlENDRAPRASADfl NARENDRAPRASADJI PANDEYv .. SW AMI K. NARA Y ANDASJI [r ASAY AT ,J.) 3 9 3
with the other connected appeal. [396-G, HJ
A
2. While deciding the issue of injunction the Courts have to consider
the cumulative factors i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss. Definite findings have to be given on these aspects on a
primafacie basis. The impugned judgment of the High Court which forms
the subject matter of appeal does not meet the requirements. Therefore, B
without expressing any opinion on the merits and the acceptability of the
various issues, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh
consideration. No opinion is expressed on the merits. (397-A, BJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3380 of2005. C
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.2004 of the Gujarat High
Court in Appeal from Order No. 421 of 2002.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 3381 and 3381 of 2005.
D
Harish N. Salve, S.B. Vakil, C.A. Sundaram, Hasmukh Parikh, P.H.
Parekh, Hemang Parikh, Ms. Shakun Sharma, Ms. Meenakshi Roy, E.C.
Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawal; B.V. Desai, H.M. Parekh, H,H.
Parekh, Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Pradeep Kr. Malik and Ms. Sheenam Parwanda E
with them for the Appellants.
K. Parasaran, K.K. Venugopal, Ashok K. Desai, Anip Sachthey, Hari
N.P. Raval, P.G. Desai, Murgen Purohit, Shriniwas R. Khalap, E.Venu Kumar,
H. Ahmadi, Pradeep Ranjan Tiwari, Ms. J.S. Wad, Ashish Wad, Ms. Surabhi
Madan and Neeraj Kumar with them for the Respondents.
F
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
When litigants come before courts raising disputes as to who shall
function as Head of a religious or financial institutions, and they travel through G
the corridors of various courts and come before this Court, one wonders
when do these persons get time to think of purity sublime essences of religion
and their duties as religious leaders. It has a sad reflection on the credibility
of the religious institutions; Materialistic pursuits increasingly replace divine
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A
pursuit~. The present case at hand is no exception.
The dispute centres round the question as to whether the removal of
Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pandey from the post of Acharya on the
basis of a purported resolution dated l l .5.2002 passed by a body calling
itself Satsangha Maha Sabha was valid. Intimately linked with this core issue
B is the legality of the action taken to in.stall Rakesh Prasad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.