Bombay High Court
Ravi Kiran Aggarwal vs Matadin Kejriwal on 21 December, 2011
Bench: R. M. Borde
1 1432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1432 OF 2010
Ravi Kiran Aggarwal
of Mumbai, Age; 62 years Adult Indian
inhabitant residing at 18th Floor,
(Pent House) Villa Orb, Darabsha Lane,
Opposite Palm Beach School,
Off.Napean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 026. ... Appellant.
V/s.
1. Matadin Kejriwal
of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant
residing at 7B/14-15, Sangeeta,
Juhu Road, Mumbai 400 049.
2. Bhavesh Shah
Adult, Indian Inhabitant residing
at C/o. Shree Krishna Hindu
Merchants 44, Belle Vue, Chowpatty
Road, Mumbai 400 004.
3. Rajinder K. Jain
of Mumbai, India Inhabitant
residing at North Avenue, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai and also at C/o.
Shree Krishna Hindu Mechants
44, Belle Vue, Chowpatty Road,
Mumbai 400 004.
4. Nitin Dossa
Adult, Indian Inhabitant having his
place Business at Dossa Medicare
Ltd. Nanabhai Mansion, 4th Floor,
Sir P.M.Road, Fort, Mumbai and also
at Shree Krishna Hindu Mechants,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:01:25 :::
2 1432
44, Belle Vue Chowpatty Road,
Mumbai 400 004.
5. P.M.Rungta
Adult, Inhabitant residing at
Rungta House, Rungta Lane,
68 A Napean Sea Road,
Mumbai 400 006 and also at
C/o.Shree Krishna Hindu Mechants,
44, Belle Vue Chowpatty Road,
Mumbai 400 004.
6. Shree Krishna Hindu Mechants Club,
44, Belle Vue Chowpatty Road,
Mumbai 400 004.
7. S.Subramaniam, adult residing at
Mt.Pali Apartments, 10-A, Pali Mala
Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050.
8. Ms.Kajal Anand,
adult Hon.Secretary of
Shree Krishna Hindu Mechants Club,
Residing at 12, Mayfair Bldg.,
Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai 400 020.
9. Maninder Singh, Jt.Secretary,
Residing at D-102, Poornima Apartments,
23, Pedder road, Mumbai 400 026.
10. S.M.Shah,
residing at 144-A, A Navshanti Nagar,
98, Napean Sea Road Mumbai 400 006.
11. Ashok Mehta,
residing at 10-B, Lands End Building.
29, Dongri Road, Malabar Hill,
Mumbai 400 006.
12. Anita Singh
Residing at Park House, 2nd Floor,
81, Nathalal Parekh Marg, Colaba
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:01:25 :::
3 1432
Mumbai 400 005.
13. Rakesh Malhotra,
30, Sagar Kunj, 78, Napean Sea Road,
Mumbai 400 006.
14. Srichand Asrani,
4th Floor, Betry apartments,
Turner Road, 146, Povery Road,
Bandra, Mumbai 400 050.
15. Govind U. Melwani,
1-B, Alatamount Road,
Mumbai 400 026.
16.
Rekha Punjabi, adult, residing at
4, Hanuman Sharan, Bomnji Petit
Road, Warden Road, Opp.Parsi
General Hospital, Mumbai 400 026.
17. Rajni Anand,
residing at 12, Mayfair Building,
Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai 400 020.
18. Taher Adamali Adenwala,
Residing at 82-B, Jolly Maker
Apartments, `I',
Cuffee Parade, Mumbai 400 005.
19. Gehimal Jassumal Jethani,
Residing at Flat No.8, Padam II,
4th Floor, Peddar Road, Mumbai 400 026.
20. Hemendra M. Shah,
residing at P-1, Patropolis, 157,
S.Bhagat Singh Road, Colaba,
Mumbai 400 036.
21. Shamji H. Gogre,
residing at 123-124, New Sarnath B,
Sophia College Lane,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:01:25 :::
4 1432
B.D.Road, Mumbai 400 026. ... Respondents.
Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate with Ms.Fereshta Sethna,
Aagar Doshi and Nagendra Dube for the appellant.
Vivek Phadke i/b. M/s.Kaikini Phadke & Associates
for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Hemang Jariwala i/b. V.Deshpande & Co. for respondent No.6.
A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Kalpesh Joshi
for respondent Nos.8, 12 and 15 to 21.
CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J.
RESERVED ON : 1st December 2011.
PRONOUNCED ON : 21st December 2011.
JUDGMENT :
In this appeal from order, the appellant- original plaintiff is
taking exception to the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court,
Greater Bombay on 23rd November 2010 rejecting Notice of Motion No.
2363/2010 in Suit No.1783/2010 presented by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff prayed for grant of order of injunction staying the effect and
implementation of the resolution dated 2nd August 2010 passed by the
Managing Committee of defendant No.6 expelling the plaintiff from the
membership of defendant No.6. The plaintiff also claimed an order of
injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3, defendant No.6 and its
managing committee i.e. defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7 to 21 or any other
5 1432
members or their representative, servants, agents, assigns and
successors in office from interfering in any manner directly or indirectly
with the plaintiff's membership of defendant No.6- Club as well as
plaintiff's entry, exit and access to the premises and facilities of
defendant No.6 except in accordance with law.
2. The defendant No.6 is an unregistered club and the
plaintiff claims to be a life member of the said club. As a result of
decision of the enquiry committee, the plaintiff was suspended from
membership of defendant No.6- club and, ultimately, he has been
expelled from the membership of the club by its managing committee
vide resolution dated 2nd August 2010. The plaintiff has claimed
declaratory relief as regards action of expulsion from membership. The
prayers contained in the plaint are as quoted below:
a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that
the minutes of the meeting of the Disciplinary
Enquiry Committee held on 25/06/2010 and
9/07/2010 as recorded by the Disciplinary
Enquiry Committee are false and fabricated
and are of no legal effect whatsoever.
b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that
the action of the Disciplinary Enquiry
Committee in arbitrarily and mala fide closing
the proceedings without hearing Plaintiff is
not only contrary to the provisions of the
Rules, Regulations and Constitution of
Defendant No.6 but also contrary to the
principles of natural justice and is accordingly,
null and void and of no legal effect
whatsoever;
c) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that
the Report dated 12/07/2010 prepared by
6 1432
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 is prepared in a manner
which is not only contrary to the provisions of
the Rules, Regulations and Constitution of
Defendant No.6 but also contrary to the
principles of natural justice and is accordingly,
null and void and of no legal effect
whatsoever;
d) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that
show cause notice dated 19/07/2010 issued
by the Managing Committee of Defendant No.
6 has been issued in violation not only of the
provisions of the Rules, Regulations and
Constitution of Defendant No.6 but also
contrary to the principles of natural justice
and is accordingly, null and void and of no
legal effect whatsoever;
e) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that
the resolution dated 19/07/2010 passed by
the Managing Committee of Defendant No.6
suspending the membership of Plaintiff is
violative not only of the Rules, regulations
and Constitution of Defendant No.6 but also
principles of natural justice and is accordingly,
null and void and of no legal effect
whatsoever;
ee) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that
the resolution of expulsion of Plaintiff passed
by the Managing Committee of Defendant No.
6 at its meeting held on 02.08.2010 is in
violation of principles of natural justice, rule
and regulations of the Defendant No.6 club
and is accordingly illegal, null and void and of
no legal effect.
f) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order
setting aside the Constitution of the present
Disciplinary Enquiry Committee i.e.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the ground of bias
and disband the same;
7 1432
g) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order
and injunction restraining Defendant Nos.1 to
3 by an order and permanent injunction from
proceeding with the enquiry relating to the
Show Cause Notice dated 06/10/2008 on
account being biased against Plaintiff;
h) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an
order and injunction restraining Defendants
from proceeding with the enquiry relating to
the Show Cause Notice dated 06/10/2008 on
account of being biased against Plaintiff
and/or taking any step in furtherance of the
Show-Cause Notice dated 19/07/2010;
hh) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order
and injunction quashing and setting aside the
resolution of expulsion of Plaintiff passed by
the Managing Committee of Defendant No.6
at its meeting held on 02.08.2010.
i) This Hon'ble Court pass an order and
injunction restraining Defendants from
holding any meeting of the Managing
Committee in relation to or in connection
with the Show Cause Notice dated
06/10/2008;
j) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order
and mandatory injunction directing
Defendant No.6 and/or its Managing
Committee i.e. Defendant Nos.4 & 5 and
Defendant No.7 to 21 to appoint a retired
High Court Judge or any other person
regarded as suitable by this Hon'ble Court to
conduct the enquiry relating to the Show
Cause Notice dated 06/10/2008;
k) that pending the hearing and final disposal of
the Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass
an order and injunction staying further
8 1432
proceedings in the said Show Cause Notice
dated 6/10/2008 and the Show Cause Notice
dated 19/07/2010; and
l) that pending the hearing and final disposal of
the Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass
an order and injunction staying the effect and
implementation of the resolution dated
19/07/2010 passed by the Managing
Committee of Defendant No.6 suspending the
membership of Plaintiff;
ll) that pending the hearing and final disposal of
the Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass
an order and injunction staying the effect and
implementation of the resolution dated
02.08.2010 passed by the Managing
Committee of Defendant No.6 expelling
Plaintiff from the membership of the
Defendant No.6.
m) that pending the hearing and final disposal of
the Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass
an order and injunction restraining Defendant
Nos.1 to 3, Defendant No.6 and its Managing
Committee i.e. Defendant Nos.4 & 5 and
Defendant No.7 to 21 or their respective
servants, agents, assigns and successors in
office by an order and injunction from
interfering in any manner, directly or
indirectly with Plaintiff's membership of
Defendant No.6 as well as Plaintiff's entry,
exit and access to the premises and facilities
of Defendant No.6 except in accordance with
law; and
n) That pending the hearing and final disposal of
the suit this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass
an order and mandatory injunction directing
Defendant No.6 and/or its Managing
Committee i.e. Defendant Nos.4 & 5 and
Defendant No.7 to 21 to appoint a retired
9 1432
High Court Judge or any other person
regarded as suitable by this Hon'ble Court to
conduct the enquiry relating to the Show
Cause Notice dated 06/10/2008
3. The trial Court has turned down the notice of motion
presented by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction restraining
defendants from interfering with his entitlement to act as a member of
the club. The trial court has observed that there are many contentious
issues involved in the suit and unless those are gone into, at the
interlocutory stage, the relief as claimed by the plaintiff which is in the
nature of final relief cannot be granted.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties.
5. It is vehemently contended by learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant that not only the enquiry committee and
the managing committee of the club but even the trial Court has
completely ignored the fact that there was a reply presented by the
appellant to the show cause notice dealing with the allegations made
against him and the said reply has not at all been considered either by
the enquiry committee or the trial Court. The enquiry committee as
well as the managing committee and the trial Court have completely
overlooked the fact that the reply was on record and they have
proceeded on erroneous assumption that there was no reply filed by
the appellant. It is also contended that the copy of the report of the
disciplinary committee was not delivered to the appellant. It is, thus,
contended that there is breach of the principles of natural justice by the
10 1432
committee while conducting enquiry and directing expulsion of the
appellant from the membership of the club. The order passed by the
managing committee being in ignorance of the principles of natural
justice and the trial Court having failed to take into account that there
was, in fact, reply tendered to the show cause notice by the appellant,
the notice of motion tendered by the appellant for grant of interim
relief ought to have been allowed by the trial court.
6. It cannot be controverted that respondent No.6 is an
unregistered association. The admission and expulsion of the
members of the association is governed by the rules framed by the
association in that regard. In an unregistered association, the matters
relating to admission and expulsion of the members are essentially
governed by the contract and in the instant matter as per the rules
governing the admission and expulsion. The appellant has agreed to
abide by the rules and regulations and agreed to be bound by the
regulations and, therefore, it has to be seen whether the expulsion of
the appellant from the membership of the club is in consonance with
the rules or not. The rule governing exclusion of member and
suspension is recorded in rule 13 of the rules of association whereas
rule 15 of the rules provides for a remedy of appeal against the order of
expulsion. Rules 13 and 15 of the rules are quoted as below:
13. Exclusion of the Member and Suspension and
Expulsion of the Members.
A. If any Member refused to accept (an to
approve) these Rules, Regulations and Bye
Laws or any of the Resolution or he does
not rare to accept/ and approve) them and
in the opinion of the Managing Committee,
11 1432
if any of the Members found guilty of
misbehavior or of initiating false and
wrong move either within the premises of
the Club or outside the premises because
of which there is a possibility of putting the
unit of the Club in danger or of creating
disturbance and causing interruption
therein or disturbing or hindering the
honour, prestige, reputation and stableness
of the Club or for any other manner
whatsoever, then, the Managing
Committee can exclude the Membership of
the said Member for a period of time as
decided by the Managing Committee or
ig can impose Bahisakar (Suspension) from
entering into the premise of the entire
building of the Club or into any part
thereof or from making use thereof upon
the said Member or can impose Bartaraf
(Suspension) as decided by the Managing
Committee in its discretion (and will) by
passing resolution to that effect. But as
stated hereinabove, at least two third
Member from out of the Members who
have remain present in the Meeting of the
Managing Committee should have given
their vote in favour of the matter of the
Resolution of exclusion and in the matter
of the Resolution of suspension of the
Membership of the said Member at least
three fourth Members from out of the
members who have remain present in the
Meeting of the Managing Committee
should have given their Vote in favour of
the matter of the Resolution of expulsion
of the Membership of the said Member.
B. Such Member should be given a Notice of
the Meeting in which the discussions and
deliberations in the Matter of the aforesaid
Resolution at least 7 days in advance prior
to the convening of such Meeting and such
12 1432
Member will have right to give explanation
or defence either orally or in writing as
found proper by the said Member.
C. During this period of time, the Managing
Committee can suspend the Membership of
such Member from the Club till the time
the deliberations of such Resolution as
mentioned hereinabove are continuing and
such Resolution as mentioned hereinabove
are continuing and such Resolution is
either passed or rejected.
D. If the Resolution of suspension is rejected,
ig then, in that case hence the Managing
Committee shall have authority and
powers to initiate such steps and
proceedings to pass the Resolution for
excluding (Exclusion) such Member or for
suspending him form the Club or any other
steps as found proper and reasonably by
the Managing Committee.
E. If the Resolution for excluding the Member
as mentioned hereinabove is passed that
means he is excluded in such a manner,
then, he shall not have any rights of
making any tupe of use of building of the
Club of getting any supplies or of
implementing any of the mutual right
amongst the Members even as the Guest
during the period of time for which he is
excluded. Inspite of the same, he will be
responsible to make payments of the
amounts found due and payable by him
including the amounts of the subscription
etc. One who commits defaults (Defaulter).
14. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
15. Appeal restriction
13 1432
An Appeal against the decision in any of the
matters against the Member arrived by the
Managing Committee on the basis of the
powers, authorities and discretion by and
through these Rules, Regulations and any Bye
Laws vested with and specified in the
Managing Committee. But if any Member is
expelled then in the said Matter, he shall have
rights for making a Written Application with
the signatures of at least 21 Members
(excepting Honorary Members) for convening
an Extra Ordinary Meeting of the Club
addressed to the Managing Committee. And
in such an Extra Ordinary Meeting he can
prefer an Appeal against the resolution of his
expulsion that is passed against him before
such Extra Ordinary Meeting. Such Written
Application is required to be made within a
period of 7 Days from the Date of the passing
of the Resolution of the expulsion. The
Managing Committee will convene such Extra
Ordinary Meeting withing a period of 60 Days
upon the receipt of such Written Application.
As to whatever Resolution is passed by
minimum ¾ Members of the Members who
remained present in this Extra Ordinary
Meeting, the same shall be treated as final in
the Matter of the Resolution of the Expulsion
and the same shall be binding upon all persons
(and concerned parties).
7. Rules provide that the managing committee can exclude
the member for a period of time as decided by the managing committee
or impose Bahisakar (suspension) or can impose Bartaraf (suspension)
as decided by the managing committee in its discretion by passing
resolution to that effect. Rules also provide that at least 2/3rd members
out of members present and voting in the meeting of the managing
committee if cast their vote in favour of resolution for exclusion or for
14 1432
suspension, membership of the member can be suspended or he can be
expelled by 3/4th members out of members who are present in the
meeting. Clause (b) of rule 13 provides for issuance of notice of the
meeting in which discussion or deliberation of the matter of the
aforesaid resolution would be taken up at least seven days in advance
and the member shall have right to give explanation or defence either
oral or in writing. Rule 15 of the rules provides for tendering appeal to
the general body of the club. The expelled member shall have right to
make a written application with signatures of at least 21 members for
convening extra ordinary meeting of the club and in such extra
ordinary meeting he can prefer an appeal against the resolution of his
expulsion. A written application is required to be made within a
period of seven days from the date of passing resolution of expulsion
and the managing committee is required to convene extra ordinary
meeting within sixty days upon the receipt of such written application.
A resolution would be passed by minimum 3/4th members attending
the extra ordinary meeting the same shall be treated as final and it
would be binding on all the persons. Thus, a peculiar procedure has
been provided in respect of exclusion of member as well as
consideration of the appeal by the extra ordinary general meeting.
8. In the instant matter, the appellant, without availing the
remedy of appeal has approached the City Civil Court by presenting
suit and has also sought stay to the resolution of his expulsion. It is to
be noted that the rules governing the admission and expulsion of the
member framed by the club will govern the field and any deviation
therefrom even if the rules appear to be harsh or unjust would not be
permissible. It is argued that a preliminary objection was raised in
15 1432
respect of entertainability of the suit on the ground of availability of
remedy of appeal. However, the said objection was overruled and the
suit was held to be entertainable. It would be a different matter to
hold the suit as entertainable but that itself may not be a criteria for
grant of interim relief. Reliance can be placed on the judgment in the
matter of T.P.Daver v. Lodge Victoria No.363, S.C.Belgaum, 1964
SCR 1. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has observed thus:
"The source of the power of associations like
clubs and lodge to expel their members is the
contract on the basis of which they become
members. This principle has been restated by Lord
Morton in Bonsor v. Musicians' Union, (1956) A.C.
104, 127. There, one Bonsor, who became a
member of a trade union, was expelled. In that
context Lord Moron observed:
"When Mr.Bonsor applied to join the
respondent union, and his application was
accepted, a contract came into existence
between Mr.Bonsor and the respondent,
whereby Mr.Bonsor agreed to abide by the
rules of the respondent union, and the union
impliedly agreed that Mr.Bonsor would not be
excluded by the union or its officers otherwise
than in accordance with the rules".
This contractual origin of the rule of expulsion has
its corollary in the cognate rule that in expelling a
member the conditions laid down in the rules must
be strictly complied with. In Maclean v . The
Workers Union, (1929) 1 Ch. 602, 623, the
contractual foundation of the power is described
thus:
"In such a case as the present, where the
tribunal is the result of rules adopted by
persons who have formed the association
16 1432
known as a trade union, it seems to me
reasonably clear that the rights of the plaintiff
against the defendants must depend simply
on the contract, and that the material terms
of the contract must be found in the rules".
Proceeding on that basis, the learned Judge
observed:
"It is certain, therefore, that a domestic
tribunal is bound to act strictly according to
its rules and is under an obligation to act
honestly and in good faith."
The same idea was expressed by the Calcutta High
Court in Ezra v. Mahendra Nath Banerji, I.L.R.
(1946) 2 Cal. 88, 109 thus:
"..........Where the rule provides in any
particular respect that some condition must
be fulfilled, then that condition must be
strictly complied with, since the power of
expulsion is itself dependent on the terms of
the rule."
The next question is whether the doctrine of
strict compliance with the rules implies that every
minute deviation from the rules, whether
substantial or not, would render the act of such a
body void. The answer to this question will depend
upon the nature of the rule infringed; whether a
rule is mandatory or directory depends upon each
rule, the purpose for which it is made and the
setting in which it appears.........."
9. In the instant matter, the enquiry has been conducted in
consonance with the rules framed by the association. The appellant
was given seven day notice as required by the rules to submit his say
before the meeting of the managing committee. The charges were
17 1432
made known to the appellant and the enquiry committee, has dealt
with charges leveled against him. If the appellant is not satisfied with
the decision of the managing committee, under the rules framed by the
club, it was open for him to avail the remedy of appeal and approach
the appellate authority which has not been done by the appellant. The
rules of the club provide that if 3/4th amongst the members of the
general body of the club vote in favour of the appellant, he is entitled
to retain his membership. The procedure, according to the appellant,
may he harsh or it may even be unjust but while consideration of
request for admission to the membership he has undertaken to abide by
the rules and regulations, and would be necessary to follow the rules
and regulation, even though, they are harsh and unjust. In this
context, observations of the Maauagham J. in Macleans' case, (1929)
1 Ch. 602, 628 referred to by the Apex Court in the case of T.P.Daver
(cited supra) are relevant which read thus:
"A person who joins an association governed by
rules under which he may be expelled
............................... has in my judgment no legal
right of redress if he be expelled according to the
rules, however unfair and unjust the rules or action
of the expelling tribunal mya be provided that it
acts in good faith ..................................... The
phrase, "the principle of natural justice," can only
mean in this connection the principles of fair play so
deeply rooted in the minds of modern Englishmen
that a provision for an inquiry necessarily imports
that the accused should be given his chance of
defence and explanation. On that point there is no
difficulty. Nor do I doubt that in most cases it is a
reasonable inference from the rules that if there is
anything of the nature of lis between two persons,
neither of them should sit on the tribunal."
18 1432
10. Much is said about failure to serve the copy of the report of
the enquiry committee and the reference by the trial judge in the
judgment in respect of non-submission of reply by the appellant to the
charges. The learned Judge in his judgment has observed that there is
no point-wise/ para-wise reply tendered by the appellant to the
statement of charges, however, it has been observed that same has been
tendered. But that itself is not sufficient to vitiate the order. In the
matters decided by the domestic tribunal, if a particular decision is
arrived at, the civil Court is not expected to substitute its own views for
the views of the domestic tribunal unless it is based on no evidence or
something which a reasonable man cannot arrive at. [Royal Western
India Turf Club Ltd. v. Vinayak J. Gaekwad, 2006 (5) Bom.C.R.
481].
11. In the instant matter, the managing committee of the club
which conducted an enquiry has dealt with the charges leveled against
the appellant and has arrived at the finding. It is also to be noted that
in accordance with the rules framed by the club in respect of expulsion
of the member, decision is taken by the managing committee by
majority (by 3/4th members present) and the same is not necessary to
be lightly interfered with. So far as non-supply of copy of the report is
concerned, the appellant has not shown as to what prejudice is caused
to him. It is necessary in the matters of domestic enquiry for a
delinquent to show as to what is the prejudice caused to him because of
deviation from the rule. Every deviation from rules or procedure is not
liable to be interfered with by the High Court. In this context, reliance
can be placed on the judgment in the case of Deoraj v. State of
19 1432
Maharashtra, AIR 2004 SC 1975; wherein the Apex Court observed
thus:
Situations emerge where the granting of an interim
relief would tantamount to granting the final relief
itself. And then there may be converse cases where
withholding of an interim relief would tantamount
to dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time
the main matter comes up for hearing, there would
be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the
petitioner though all the findings may be in his
favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong
prima facie case-of a standard much higher than
just prima facie case, the considerations of balance
of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully
tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the
applicant may persuade the Court to grant an
interim relief though it amounts to granting the
final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and
exceptional cases. The Court would grant such an
interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it
would prick the conscience of the Court and do
violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice
being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at
the end the Court would not be able to vindicate
the cause of justice. Obviously, such would be rare
cases accompanied by compelling circumstances,
where the injury complained of is immediate and
pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The
conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and
the Court may put the parties on such terms as may
be prudent.
12. The appellant has drawn my attention to the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR
1967 SC 1269 and contended that even an administrative order which
involves severe consequences has to be passed consistently with the
20 1432
rules of natural justice. In the instant matter, the managing
committee of the Club has conducted an enquiry in accordance with
the rules formulated by the club and, after issuing show cause notice to
the appellant, has taken decision by majority. The decision so taken by
the managing committee by majority is liable to be challenged in
appeal to the general body of the club in its extra ordinary meeting.
However, the appellant has failed to do so. If the majority of the
members of the club want the appellant to be included, his membership
can be reinstated. It is to be noted that the order of expulsion from
membership of an unregistered trust or association is a subject matter
of challenge and the activities of the club including admission and
expulsion of the members, as stated in the T.P.Daver's case (supra) are
governed by the rules or contract in respect of admission of
membership. What is to be seen in the matter is whether the
managing committee has adhered to the rules and regulations, of the
association.
13. It is also to be taken note of that the appellant has raised
several questions of fact which are disputed by the respondents. The
questions of fact raised in the matter are required to be dealt with by
the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties. It is also to be
taken note of that the appellant was initially suspended from
membership on 25th June 2010 and has been expelled from
membership on 2nd August 2010. Since the date his expulsion the
appellant is not a member of the club and is not permitted to perform
the functions. The trial Court, on consideration of material placed
before it, did not find favour with the appellant and refused to grant
interim relief in view of the order passed on 23rd November 2010. By
21 1432
way of an interim relief in the facts and circumstances of the case, it
would not be appropriate to direct the restoration of membership of the
club to the appellant thereby staying the operation of resolution of his
expulsion. In the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice
would be met if the trial court is directed to decide the pending suit
expeditiously.
14. In the result, appeal from order stands dismissed with
direction to the trial Court to decide Suit No.1783/2010 as
expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from
the date of receipt of writ of this order, in accordance with law. In view
of dismissal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not
survive and stands disposed of accordingly. In the facts and
circumstances the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(R.M.BORDE, J.)
