Sg vs Ct. 8 Calcutta Cosmopolitan Club ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7863 Cal

                                              SAT 146 of 2016
Item-65.                            CAN 1 of 2016 (old CAN 5619 of 2016)
           28-11-2022

                                               Bharwarlal Bhandari
  sg                                                 Versus
             Ct. 8                       Calcutta Cosmopolitan Club Ltd.


                              This matter appeared in the warning list on 16th November,

                        2022 with a clear indication that the appeal shall be transferred to

                        the daily list on 21st November, 2022.

                              The appellant is not represented nor any accommodation is

                        prayed for on behalf of the appellant, although, the appellant has

                        sufficient knowledge and notice of the listing of this matter. This

                        appeal was filed in the year 2016 but since then no attempt has

                        been made to move this appeal. The defects have also not been

                        removed.

                              The Additional Stamp Reporter in his report dated 25 th

                        April, 2016 has stated that the second appeal has been preferred

                        with deficit court fees. The appellant did not take any step to

                        remove the defects for the last six years.

                              The appellate decree dated 18th January, 2016 affirming the

                        judgment and decree dated 10th September, 2008 in a suit for

                        declaration and perpetual injunction is the subject matter of the

                        second appeal.

                              In the suit, the plaintiff has challenged the order of

                        suspension dated 11th November, 1999 and the order of

                        termination dated 17th December, 1999. The ground taken for

                        challenging the termination of membership was that the said

                        decision was not taken in the extraordinary general meeting.

                        However, exhibit-A i.e. the Memorandum and Articles of
                         2




Association of the respondent club was relied upon by the learned

Trial Judge to reject the said submission as it would be evident

from the relevant articles that for termination of membership, no

extraordinary general meeting is required. The President or the

Vice-President or the Honorary Secretary in the meeting deciding

suspension or termination is also not required under the relevant

articles.

The First Appellate Court in deciding whether suspension

and termination of membership was illegal, has taken into

consideration the well-settled principle that the learned Civil

Court has a limited jurisdiction to inquire into the internal affairs

of the club and unless it is found that the decision is in violation of

the principles of natural justice or tented with biased bad faith or

like, the court shall not interfere with the decision of a club.

Both the courts found that there are materials based on

which show-cause notice was issued which ultimately resulted in

aspersion or termination of the membership.

The concurrent finding of facts based on such documentary

and oral evidence does not require to be interfered with in the

second appeal.

The second appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall

be no order as to costs.

In view of the dismissal of the second appeal, CAN 1 of

2016 (old CAN 5619 of 2016), accordingly, stands dismissed.

(Uday Kumar, J.)                                  (Soumen Sen, J.)