An internal dispute within the Shree Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji has escalated to the High Court after the removal of a senior trustee and chairman sparked legal action against the organisation’s leadership.
In a ruling delivered on April 24, Acting Justice Penijamini Lomaloma addressed an application relating to interim injunction orders filed by Mahesh Kumar Mishra, the former trustee and chairman of trustees of the Sabha.
The court heard that Mr Mishra was appointed trustee chair on July 24, 2025, but was informed by letter on February 3 this year that the National Executive Council of the Sabha had resolved to remove him from the position with immediate effect.
Mr Mishra subsequently filed a writ in the High Court seeking declarations that his removal was unlawful, illegal and carried out without due process under the Sabha constitution. He also sought orders allowing him to continue in his role as chairman of trustees.
The Shree Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji is described in the ruling as the largest Hindu religious organisation in Fiji.
Justice Lomaloma noted that the defendants — including Sabha president Dhirendra Nand, national secretary Krishneel Tiwari and the National Executive Council — opposed the injunction application and filed extensive affidavit evidence outlining concerns over the plaintiff’s conduct.
Among the issues raised were allegations that Mr Mishra had used independent legal advisers without approval, breached confidentiality requirements and lodged a complaint with FICAC regarding a government grant without consulting the National Executive Council.
The court also heard claims that Mr Mishra had refused to sign legal documents relating to the purchase of land in Labasa for the Sabha.
Justice Lomaloma said there were substantial factual disputes requiring proper determination during the substantive hearing and cautioned against making findings on contested affidavit evidence at the interlocutory stage.
The judge revoked an earlier interim order that temporarily reinstated Mr Mishra as chairman of trustees, stating that such relief could not be granted before the full hearing because it formed part of the main relief sought in the writ.
However, the court ordered that the defendants remain restrained from appointing or electing a replacement chairman of trustees until the injunction proceedings are fully determined.
