Skip to content
[12/22, 13:16] Sekarreporter 1: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99234743/ [12/22, 13:16] Sekarreporter 1: Bangalore District Court Nithyananda Dhanapeetam Of vs Smt.Aarathi S.Rao on 27 May, 2019 IN THE COURT OF XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45)
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2019 PRESENT: Smt.Latha, XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. O.S.No.5239/2017
Plaintiff : Nithyananda Dhanapeetam of Columbus, Situated at No.820, Pollock Road, Delaware, Ohio 4301, United States of America, Represented by its President Mrs.Allision Fritz (By M/s.Viju Associates) Vs Defendant : Smt.Aarathi S.Rao, Aged about 40 years, D/o. Sethu Madhavan, R/at PH-A, Grace Garden Apartment, Hennur Main Road, Bangalore – 560 043. (Exparte) Date of Institution of the suit: 01.08.2017 Nature of the suit : Money Suit Date of recording evidence: 18.7.2018 Date of Judgment : 27.05.2019 Total Duration : Day/s Month/s Year/s 26 09 01
The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,30,99,567/- against the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a non-profit corporation and doing its business as “Nithyananda Vedic Temple” at United States of America. The plaintiff organizes programmes and services for the central Ohio communities at Ohio State, USA. The plaintiff is 100% volunteer. Nityananada Swamy is the spiritual head of the plaintiff. His teachings are rooted in the Hindu Religion and vedic tradition. The defendant was also working with Nityananada Swamy through plaintiff Institution from 2004-2010 and teaching yoga, meditation and other valuable and patented techniques. She was a volunteer in the plaintiff Institution. The defendant falsely reported that since 2005-2009 she had been sexually abused from Sri Nityananada Swamy and defamed the reputation of Nityananada Swamy. Since the false allegations are made, the plaintiff Institution had filed a suit before the District Court, Unites States of America, in case No.2:13 CV 526 and the Court decreed the suit for $5,15,891.75 i.e. Rs.3,30,99,567/-. Since the defendant is residing in Bangalore the plaintiff has filed this suit as per Section 13 of CPC for recovery of Rs. Rs.3,30,99,567/- with interest at 18% p.a. After registering the suit, summons has been issued to the defendant. Though, the suit summons received by the defendant, she did not appear before the Court. Hence, she has been placed exparte. To prove and substantiate the contention, the President of the plaintiff Institution got herself examined as PW.1 and got in all 10 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and he has also filed the written arguments. The points that would arise for my consideration are: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit? 2) What order or decree? My findings on the above points are: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative; Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following : REASONS Point No.1: To substantiate the contention, the President of the plaintiff Institution namely Allison Fritz got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked in all 10 documents. PW.1 filed affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief by reiterating the plaint averments. According to the P.W.1, the plaintiff is a non-profit corporation and doing its business as “Nithyananda Vedic Temple” at United States of America. The plaintiff organizes programmes and services for the central Ohio communities at Ohio State, USA. The plaintiff is 100% volunteer. Nityananada Swamy is the spiritual head of the plaintiff. His teachings are rooted in the Hindu Religion and vedic tradition. The defendant was also working with Nityananada Swamy through plaintiff Institution from 2004- 2010 and teaching yoga, meditation and other valuable and patented techniques. She was a volunteer in the plaintiff Institution. The defendant falsely reported that since 2005- 2009 she had been sexually abused from Sri Nityananada Swamy and defamed the reputation of Nityananada Swamy. Since the false allegations are made, the plaintiff Institution had filed a suit before the District Court, Unites States of America, in case No.2:13 CV 526 and the Hon’ble Court decreed the suit for $5,15,891.75 i.e. Rs.3,30,99,567/-. The plaintiff in order to execute the foreign judgment filed this suit under Section 13 of the CPC. As per Section 13 of CPC “A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating SC under the same title except- (a) where it has not been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction; (b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case; (c) where it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable; (d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice; (e) where it has been obtained by fraud; (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India. As held in AIR 1962 SC 1737 the Indian Courts will not enforce a foreign judgment if it is not that of a competent Court. Therefore, before executing the judgment and decree the plaintiff has to file the suit under Section 13 of CPC. The plaintiff has also produced through P.W.1 the certified copy of the judgment and as per Section 14 of CPC the Court shall presume, upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment that such judgment was pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction. In the present suit, though the plaintiff substantiated by examining the President of the plaintiff Institution and also a witness by producing relevant documents at Ex.P.1 to P.10, the defendant has failed to appear before the Court. Since the defendant has failed to appear before the Court and failed to disclose the presumption available under Section 14 of the CPC and also failed to establish the contrary to the exception contemplated under Section 13 of CPC, the Court has to accept the evidence produced by the plaintiff as it is. As seen from the certified copy of the judgment the District Court, United States of America in Case No. 2:13 CV 526 had decreed the suit against the defendant and directed the defendant to pay damages of $4,63,211.25, along with attorney fee $ 10,568.30 and costs of the suit $ 603.20. In total the award amount is $ 4,74,382.75 with interest at 3% from 12.8.2014 to 12.7.2017 i.e. $ 41,509. Grant total of award amount is $ 5,15,891.75. If it is converted into Indian rupees it amount to a sum of Rs.3,30,99,567/-. In this suit the plaintiff has sought for 18% p.a. of interest of Rs.3,30,99,567/-. But no where in the CPC mentioned that the foreign judgment can be altered. If this Court had granted 18% interest on the suit claim it amounts to alteration of foreign judgment. According to law it cannot be altered. The District Court of United States of America had granted 3% of interest from post judgment. There are no materials on record to show that the plaintiff is entitled to 18% of interest from the date of the suit. The plaintiff is entitled to 3% interest from 13.7.2017 since the interest had already been calculated from 12.8.2014 to 12.7.2017 in the foreign judgment. For these reasons, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. Point No.2: In view of the discussions made above and findings given on point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs. The Defendant is hereby directed to pay a sum of 3,30,99,567/- with interest at the rate of 3% p.a. from the date of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same in accordance with law. Draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of May, 2019). (Latha) XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Plaintiff: P.W.1 Allison Fritz P.W.2 Anjula Jackson List of witnesses examined for Defendant: Nil List of documents marked for the Plaintiff: Ex.P.1 Certified copy of order in Case No. 2:13- CV-00526 dt.12.8.2014 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of petition Ex.P.3 Certified copy of decree Ex.P.4 Certified copy of exhibits produced in Ex.P.5 C.D. pertaining to interview given by defendant Ex.P.6 Extract from internet of the defamatory words of the defendant Ex.P.7 Copy of complaint Ex.P.8 Certified copy of forensic report Ex.P.9 Extract from internet relating to the publication of issue 29 magazine Mind Body Spirit Ex.P.10 Certified copy of complaint given by the defendant List of documents marked for the Defendant: Nil XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.