Madhu Pandit Dasa Accused of Offering ₹50 Crore to the Auditor Who Turned on Him, With the Phones Kept Away

An updated briefing note from the Mumbai side of the ISKCON Bengaluru dispute sets out what it says V.L. Varadarajan told police: a demand through a driver, an offer at Hare Krishna Hill and a meeting in Mysuru with the phones kept away. Akincana Gocara has not seen the complaint, and the allegations are unproven.

NEW DELHI, India — Former auditor V.L. Varadarajan told Delhi police on 3 October 2026 that Madhu Pandit Dasa, president of ISKCON Bangalore, offered him more than ₹50 crore, according to a new version of the briefing note “MPD’s Double Fraud”, dated 14 October.^[1] The note, which argues the case of the society registered in Mumbai in 1971, is unsigned, and these are claims made by one party to a dispute before the Supreme Court. ISKCON Bangalore rejects that side’s account of the dispute and says the Supreme Court settled the question of ownership in its favour in May 2025.^[2][3]

What the note says the complaint contains

Akincana Gocara published the note’s earlier version, dated 8 October, in full.^[2] That version gave the police complaint one sentence. The new one says the complaint came to the Mumbai side’s notice on 8 October, that it was filed at Tilak Marg Police Station in New Delhi, that its first page bears a police-station stamp and a handwritten endorsement “DD No. 57” dated 03.10.2026, and that it continues a complaint dated 22 January 2026 at the same station.^[1] According to the note, the complaint states:^[1]

• that Madhu Pandit Dasa, through his driver, asked Varadarajan to state that ISKCON Mumbai had offered him ₹5 crore to act against Madhu Pandit Dasa, allegedly with threatening language and an assurance about unpaid professional fees;
• that Madhu Pandit Dasa offered him ₹1 crore over and above unpaid fees at a meeting at Hare Krishna Hill, Bengaluru, which Varadarajan says was video-recorded, and spoke of filing a criminal-conspiracy complaint against two Mumbai devotees;
• that at a later meeting in Mysuru, Madhu Pandit Dasa allegedly insisted that mobile phones be kept away so that nothing could be recorded, and offered more than ₹50 crore as past fees with interest, which Varadarajan says he refused;
• that Varadarajan feared for himself and his aged mother, asked for police protection and sought the preservation of telephone, CCTV, message and video records.

The note adds that the dates of the Bengaluru and Mysuru meetings are not given “in the available copy”.^[1]

Why the date matters

Three days after that complaint, Varadarajan changed course. On 21 January 2026 he had filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court saying he prepared back-dated accounts under pressure from Madhu Pandit Dasa.^[1] On 5 October, the note says, he appeared in court accompanied by Madhu Pandit Dasa and his associates, and on 6 October a new advocate filed an affidavit asking to withdraw that January statement.^[1][4]

In that filing, the note says, he stated that persons from the Mumbai society had used ₹72 lakh of gold ornaments, which he had taken on loan and pledged, as leverage to make him sign in January, and that Madhu Pandit Dasa had since contacted him and resolved the money owed to him.^[1] The New Delhi Post, which reported on the same filing, said it states that he received no financial incentive for it.^[4] If the note is accurate, the auditor gave two opposed accounts within days of each other: one to the police, and one to the court.

The other side

ISKCON Bangalore says it is an independent society that has run the temple for decades, and the Supreme Court’s May 2025 judgment stands while the review petitions of ISKCON Mumbai await a new bench.^[2][3] The note’s account of the case is contested at every step, and no court has ruled on the claims about the complaint.

As of 3 November 2026, 22:00 Brasília time, Akincana Gocara had found no response from Madhu Pandit Dasa or ISKCON Bangalore to these specific claims, in a search of the public web. ISKCON Bangalore’s news page did not load for this check, so it could not be read. Akincana Gocara has not asked them for comment.

Note on the source

The note is an advocacy document, unsigned and written from the Mumbai side. Akincana Gocara has not seen the police complaint or its “DD No. 57” endorsement, has not confirmed that any of the meetings took place, and has not seen the video the note mentions. Apart from the section on the complaint and a few small wording changes, the 14 October version repeats the text already published, and it is reproduced in full below.

The note in full

The 14 October note follows as received, with its own spelling and paragraph numbers. It is one party’s document: its allegations are unproven, and Akincana Gocara has not verified them.^[1]

14th October 2026

MPD’s Double Fraud

Brief Summary

1. Madhu Pandit Das (MPD) claims that there is a dispute between two societies bearing the identical name “International Society for Krishna Consciousness”, or ISKCON. In reality, however, this is an attempt by Madhu Pandit Das (MPD) and his family members to usurp the Bangalore Temple and other assets of ISKCON.

2. The Original ISKCON was registered by its Founder, Srila Prabhupada, in Mumbai in 1971 (“1971 Mumbai Society”) under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as well as the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. All ISKCON temples and activities in India are owned and conducted by this Society, including the ISKCON temples in Kolkata, Mayapur, Delhi, Vrindavan, etc.

3. MPD and his family used a defunct society bearing the same name as the Original ISKCON, i.e., the “1971 Mumbai Society”, to usurp the Temple and other assets of the “1971 Mumbai Society” in Bangalore.

Brief Background

4. In 1965, Srila Prabhupada (born in Kolkata in 1896) went to New York on a cargo steamship to fulfil the order of his Guru to spread the message of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the English-speaking world.

5. During his two-month voyage on the steamship, he suffered two heart attacks. He landed in New York penniless and without any support. Undeterred, he preached to the hippies in New York from a rented storefront arranged for him by a young American hippie sympathiser. After considerable struggle, in 1966, he registered the first non-profit corporation named “International Society for Krishna Consciousness” (ISKCON) under the laws of the State of New York.

6. His preaching spread to different states of the USA, and in each state he registered a separate legal entity—under the respective state laws, a non-profit corporation—with the identical name. He did the same in different countries in accordance with the laws of those countries. By the time he departed this world in 1977, he had established 108 ISKCON temples worldwide, of which eight were in India and more than 50 were in the USA.

7. In 1971, as explained in paragraph 2 above, he registered the “1971 Mumbai Society”. Until his departure from this mortal world in 1977, Srila Prabhupada established eight ISKCON temples in different states of India. Unlike in the USA, however, he did not register any separate ISKCON society in India other than the “1971 Mumbai Society”. All eight ISKCON temples were owned by the “1971 Mumbai Society”, were established as branches of that Society, and have continued to function as such. From 1971 until his departure in 1977, Srila Prabhupada was Chairman of the Governing Council (Bureau) of the “1971 Mumbai Society”.

8. In 1978, ISKCON’s largest temples, devotee communities and following were in the USA. Following the example of the USA, some followers of Srila Prabhupada who had started preaching activities in Bangalore registered another society with exactly the same name as the “1971 Mumbai Society”.

9. Immediately after this registration in 1978, they met Srila Prabhupada’s secretary, who told them that Srila Prabhupada had established eight ISKCON temples in different states of India but had not registered any separate ISKCON society other than the “1971 Mumbai Society”. Srila Prabhupada had also written a letter stating that, in India, Mumbai was the head office and, therefore, their action in registering another ISKCON society in Bangalore was contrary to his example and instructions. Consequently, they did not conduct any activity through that society, which became defunct soon after its registration—there were no meetings, funds or assets. It is hereinafter referred to as the “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society”.

The Present Litigations and Disputes

10. The present litigations and disputes arise from the fraudulent attempt by Madhu Pandit Das (MPD) and his family members to usurp the Bangalore Temple and other assets and programmes, including Akshay Patra, of the “1971 Mumbai Society” by using the “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society” as a front.

11. The “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society” had no funds, assets or activities. It did not file even a single Income Tax return for 23 years (from its registration in 1978 till 2001), until it was illegally and fraudulently revived by MPD and his family in August 2001.

12. MPD, who was appointed President of the Bangalore branch of the “1971 Mumbai Society” in 1984, admitted in five different judicial proceedings between 1986 and 2001 that:

• a. He was the Branch President of the “1971 Mumbai Society”;
• b. The “1971 Mumbai Society” was the owner of the Bangalore Temple and its other assets and programmes, including Akshay Patra; and
• c. Every year, in his capacity as President of the Bangalore Temple/branch of the “1971 Mumbai Society”, he prepared the annual balance sheet and other accounts, had them audited, and sent them to the Mumbai head office, where the accounts of all branches were consolidated and filed with the Income Tax Department in Mumbai. The Bangalore branch was reflected as a branch of the “1971 Mumbai Society” in the Income Tax returns and assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Department at Mumbai.

13. In August 2001, MPD committed a Double Fraud by exploiting the identical names of the “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society” and the “1971 Mumbai Society”, and began making the following two false and fraudulent claims:

• a. MPD and his family members were the Governing Body members of the “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society” and MPD is the president of it from 1984 (MPD did not even know about ISKCON in 1978 and had nothing to do with it); and
• b. The “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society” was the owner of the huge Temple Complex at Rajaji Nagar and the other assets of the “1971 Mumbai Society” in Bangalore. (The “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society” was a defunct entity; it had no funds or assets and had not filed even a single Income Tax return from 1978 until 2001.)

In order to support the above false and fraudulent claims, MPD and his family members fabricated antedated documents (including resolution books), manipulated accounts, and tampered with records in the custody of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), the Telephone Department, etc. For example, he fabricated a document showing that an AGM of the 1978 Bangalore Society was held in July 1984 at 210, Bellary Road, Bangalore. However, that premises was allotted to ISKCON by the Rent Controller only in February 1985, thereby clearly demonstrating that the document had been fabricated.

14. As the “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society” had no funds, accounts or balance sheets, MPD engaged V.L. Varadarajan (CA) to make cosmetic changes to 12 balance sheets of the Bangalore branch (from 1989 to 2000) and certify them with back dates. On the strength of those fabricated, back-dated balance sheets certified by V.L. Varadarajan (VLV), MPD claimed that the “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society” was the owner of the Bangalore Temple and other assets and programmes of the “1971 Mumbai Society”.

15. The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka recorded clear findings regarding the fraud, fabrication and manipulation committed by MPD, his family members and VLV (CA).

16. However, in its May 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court treated the High Court’s findings on fraud, manipulation and fabrication as irrelevant to the issue before it and did not address them. The judgment proceeded on the premise that the document claimed by MPD to be an application filed by him before the BDA for allotment of land on behalf of the “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society” had been admitted by the “1971 Mumbai Society” as genuine. In reality, the “1971 Mumbai Society” had clearly stated in its affidavits—and this was also recorded in the lower court judgments—that this very document was fabricated. This constituted a clear error apparent on the face of the record.

17. In the review proceedings, a special three-Judge Bench, in December 2025, issued notice on the ground urged by the “1971 Mumbai Society” that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and that the Supreme Court was duty-bound to address the issue of fraud, fabrication and manipulation, which could not be declined as irrelevant. The matter was listed for hearing on 22 January 2026.

18. On 21 January 2026, VLV (the Chartered Accountant) filed a counter-affidavit in the review proceedings after receiving notice from the Supreme Court. In that affidavit, he stated that, under pressure from Madhu Pandit Dasa (MPD), he had prepared back-dated audit reports and certified back-dated balance sheets and related records to assist MPD in falsely claiming ownership of the ISKCON Temple through the “Defunct 1978 Bangalore Society”. It must be noted that MPD’s entire claim concerning ownership of the funds and properties is based on the audit reports and certificates issued by this Chartered Accountant.

19. In this affidavit, the Chartered Accountant further stated that Madhu Pandit Dasa had persuaded him to participate in the preparation of these back-dated fabricated documents on the representation that this was necessary for the higher cause of saving the Bangalore Temple from what Madhu Pandit Dasa described to him as the corrupt gurus of ISKCON. According to the affidavit, he later discovered that Madhu Pandit Dasa had converted the Temple complex into a family-controlled enterprise and diverted Temple funds into real-estate businesses, which prompted him to place what he described as the true facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

20. After filing the aforesaid affidavit, the Chartered Accountant also filed an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking protection on the ground that he feared for his safety because of Madhu Pandit Dasa.

21. In February 2026, Dayaram Dasa (President of ISKCON Kolkata), acting on the advice of counsel before the Supreme Court, filed a criminal complaint against Adridharan Das, MPD, his family members and VLV (CA) for criminal breach of trust, fabrication of back-dated accounts, making false statements before a court of law, tampering with statutory records, etc. Pursuant to an order of the learned CJM, Bankshall Court, Shakespeare Sarani Police Station registered an FIR in April 2026.

22. Between June and August 2026, the IO recorded statements under Section 161 of various witnesses, including Dayaram Dasa and other ISKCON devotees who had first-hand knowledge of the MPD’s fraud. VLV (CA) also had his statement recorded in Pune because VLV was unwell and had requested the IO to travel to Pune for that purpose.

23. In September 2026, the Government of West Bengal cancelled its order handing over the mid-day meal scheme in four districts to Madhu Pandit Das.

24. On 5 October 2026, when the matter was listed for hearing before the Supreme Court, VLV (CA) appeared in Court Hall No. 4 accompanied by MPD and his associates. VLV changed his Advocate-on-Record (AOR), and on 6 October 2026, the new AOR filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court requesting permission to withdraw his earlier affidavit dated 21 January 2026, in which he had admitted his own and MPD’s manipulation and fabrication of back-dated balance sheets and other documents.

25. VLV (CA) stated that he was facing financial difficulties and that MPD had not paid his professional fees. He stated that he had therefore taken, by way of loan, gold ornaments worth approximately Rs. 72 lakh from devotees of the “1971 Mumbai Society”, pledged those ornaments with a bank, and obtained a loan against them. According to VLV, after he obtained the loan, persons from the “1971 Mumbai Society” began pressuring him to return the ornaments. As he was not in a position to return them, he alleged that this was used as leverage to compel him to file the affidavit dated 21 January 2026. VLV further stated that now MPD has contacted him and resolved issues regarding substantial amount he was supposed to get.

26. On 8th October, 2026, it came to our notice that VLV, on 3rd October, 2026 filed complaint against Madhu pandit Das with Tilak Marg Police Station, New Delhi. Its first page bears a police-station stamp and a handwritten endorsement “DD No. 57” dated 03.10.2026. This complaint state that

• a. This complaint is in continuation of his complaint dated 22 January, 2026 filed with same Tilak Marg Police station, New Delhi.
• b. that MPD, through his driver, asked VLV to state that ISKCON Mumbai had offered him ₹5 crore to act against MPD, allegedly accompanied by threatening language and an assurance regarding unpaid professional fees;
• c. that MPD offered VLV ₹1 crore over and above unpaid fees at a meeting at Hare Krishna Hill, Bengaluru, which VLV says was video-recorded, and spoke about filing a criminal-conspiracy complaint against two Mumbai devotees;
• d. that at a subsequent meeting in Mysuru, MPD allegedly insisted that mobile phones be kept away so that nothing could be recorded, and offered more than ₹50 crore as past fees with interest, which VLV says he refused; and
• e. that VLV apprehended danger to himself and his aged mother, requested police protection and sought preservation of telephone, CCTV, message and video records. The dates of the Bengaluru and Mysuru meetings have not been specified in the available copy.

Read Also:

Two Societies, One Name: Briefing Note Accuses Madhu Pandit Dasa of ‘Double Fraud’ Over Bengaluru Temple

Former auditor of ritvik temple says he was given ₹72 lakh in jewellery before signing affidavit against Madhu Pandit Dasa, New Delhi Post reports

Who Owns Bengaluru’s Hare Krishna Temple? Supreme Court Review Delayed Again as Judge Steps Aside and Former Auditor Retracts Affidavit

---

Sources

1. “MPD’s Double Fraud”, unsigned briefing note, copy received by Akincana Gocara, 14 October 2026.
2. “Two Societies, One Name: Briefing Note Accuses Madhu Pandit Dasa of ‘Double Fraud’ Over Bengaluru Temple”, Akincana Gocara, 18 October 2026. akincana.net/2026/10/18/two-societies-one-name-briefing-note…
3. “Who Owns Bengaluru’s Hare Krishna Temple? Supreme Court Review Delayed Again…”, Akincana Gocara, 12 October 2026. akincana.net/2026/10/12/who-owns-bengalurus-hare-krishna-tem…
4. “Former auditor of ritvik temple says he was given ₹72 lakh in jewellery before signing affidavit against Madhu Pandit Dasa, New Delhi Post reports”, Akincana Gocara, 15 October 2026. akincana.net/2026/10/15/former-auditor-of-ritvik-temple-says…