Calcutta High Court
Colonel M Sanjeev vs Jai Surana And Ors on 16 July, 2025
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
OD-6
ORDER SHEET
APOT/176/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
COLONEL M SANJEEV
VS
JAI SURANA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Date : 16th July, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Souradeep Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Yasho Vardhan Kochar, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Pal, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Garain, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv.
Mr. Abhimonyu Roy, Adv.
...for the respondent/plaintiff
Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J.
The Court: This appeal is directed against an order dated June 26,
2025 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in GA/3/2025 filed in
CS/13/2025.
The respondent no.1, a member and former President of the Calcutta
Swimming Club (in short "the Club") filed CS/13/2025 challenging a
suspension notice issued to him by the management of the Club. The
plaintiff prayed for ad-interim order to restrain the management of the Club
from giving any effect to the suspension notice. Upon such prayer not being
allowed and only direction for exchange of affidavits being given by the
learned Single Judge, the plaintiff preferred an appeal being
APOT/78/2025. That appeal was disposed of by this Bench vide judgment
and order dated June 24, 2025. We did not interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge and we directed that the plaintiff's application should
be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge upon exchange of
affidavits.
It appears that thereafter the plaintiff filed another application before
the learned Single Judge being GA/3/2025 praying for the following orders:-
"a) Leave be granted to file the instant application;
b) A direction upon the respondent no.1 to constitute the
Special Board afresh and initiate the meeting as prescribed
in Rule 22(g) of the Club Rules;
c) A direction upon the Respondents to extend the time
granted to nominate three gentlemen members of the Club
to represent the plaintiff/petitioner and re-constitute this
Special Board;
d) A direction upon the Respondent to furnish the Minutes of
the meeting held on 9th April, 2025 of the Special Board;
e) A direction upon the Respondent to supply a copy of the
entire matter and supporting documents as placed before
the Special Board on 9th April, 2025 which was done in the
absence of the plaintiff/petitioner;
f) A direction upon the respondents to keep in abeyance the
communication dated 24th June, 2025 till the pendency of
the instant application;
g) In the alternative, without prejudice to the rights and
contentions, permit the Petitioner/Plaintiff to nominate
three gentlemen members to represent the
Plaintiff/petitioner before the Special Board within a period
of one week."
Upon that application being moved, the impugned order was passed
by the learned Single Judge. After recording the submission of the parties,
the learned Judge passed the following order:-
"After hearing the parties and in the backdrop of the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge and the Hon'ble Division Bench
considered in the light of the available records, I am of the prima facie
view that the dispute can be resolved in an honourable manner by the
parties on the basis of the discussions in between the members, if
necessary, with the intervention of the advocates.
On the allegation that the former president has questioned the
accounts and circulated letters in respect thereof to other members,
the plaintiff/petitioner has been suspended. The plaintiff/petitioner
has suffered the order of suspension for more than 50% of the period
of suspension. At the same time one should not lose sight of the fact
that the questioning of accounts and circulation of letters may have
had an impact on the image of the present President of the club and
the members of the Executive Committee before the other members of
the club. At the end of the trial of the suit either the
plaintiff/petitioner will succeed or the defendants will be able to
establish their cause. We do not know how long the trial will take
place. The plaintiff/petitioner, the present President and the
Committee Members may reach a considerable age by that time.
However, during all these days the club will remain and the name of
the club will surface every time which in all probability will not add to
its reputation, goodwill and image of the said club.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances to enable amicable
resolution of the dispute to materialise, this Court feels that instead of
holding a Special Board meeting on 28th June, 2025 at 11.30 A.M., the
same should be adjourned and instead thereof at the same time and
venue an informal meeting may be held between the present
President, the members of the Executive Committee and the
plaintiff/petitioner.
Since I am told that notices have been issued to the past
Presidents requires by them to attend the Special Board meeting on
28th June, 2025 at 11.30 A.M., the past Presidents who will be present
at the said time and venue on 28th June, 2025 may also participate in
the said informal meeting as aforesaid.
Let this matter appear in the list on 30th June, 2025 under the
heading "For Orders".
It is expected that good sense will prevail amongst the
participants in the informal meeting so that it is held in a healthy
ambience and with the co-operation all the issues can be set to rest
once for all."
Being aggrieved, the Secretary of the Club has come up by way of this
appeal.
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge
ought not to have, in effect, stayed the holding of the Special Board meeting
scheduled to be held on June 28, 2025. That runs counter to the judgment
and order dated June 24, 2025 passed by the Division Bench disposing of
the plaintiff's appeal.
We are of the view that we need not go into those issues. The informal
meeting that was held pursuant to the desire of the learned Judge has not
yielded any positive result. In a sense, the impugned order has worked itself
out. Now that the plaintiff himself has applied for an order directing that the
Special Board meeting be held after the Board is reconstituted, the parties
agree that the following order may be passed.
Accordingly, by consent of the parties, the following order is passed:-
i. We fix August 2, 2025 (Saturday), 11.30am, as the date and
time for holding of the Special Board meeting. No further notice
of the meeting shall be issued to the parties in this proceeding.
The appellant will ensure that all concerned who are not present
before us receive adequate notice of the meeting.
ii. The management of the Club shall reconstitute the Special
Board in accordance with Rule 22(d) of the Rules and Bye-Laws
of the Club.
iii. The respondent/plaintiff shall nominate three members of the
Club to represent him at the Special Board meeting within the
next seven days and communicate the same to the Club.
iv. The Club shall make available all such papers and documents
to the plaintiff as will be made available to the members of the
Special Board.
v. The Special Board shall conduct the proceeding on August 2,
2025, strictly in accordance with Rules and Bye-Laws of the
Club.
Nothing further remains in this appeal.
The appeal and the connected application stand disposed of.
Learned Counsel for the parties rightly say that nothing remains also
in GA/3/2025 pending before the learned Single Judge. Accordingly,
GA/3/2025 is treated as on the day's list and is disposed of.
Insofar as GA/1/2025 is concerned, while disposing of
APOT/78/2025 by our order dated June 24, 2025, we had extended the
time for exchange of affidavits. The respondents before the learned Single
Judge say that they have already filed their affidavits. The plaintiff shall be
at liberty to file his reply in connection with GA/1/2025 in course of the
week with copy to learned Advocates for the respondents before the learned
Single Judge.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)
(RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)
R.Bhar
