Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Golf Association vs Mr Abhinav Lal on 22 July, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:27566
                                                 MFA No. 3278 of 2025


               HC-KAR



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                        BEFORE
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3278 OF 2025 (CPC)


              BETWEEN:

              KARNATAKA GOLF ASSOCIATION
              HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
              AT NO.1, GOLF AVENUE, KODIHALLI
              (OFF- HAL AIRPORT ROAD)
              P.B NO.817, BENGALURU-560 008
              REPRESENTED BY ITS
              HONORARY SECRETARY
              MRS. ROOPA PRATHAP
                                                      ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. REGO L.P.E, ADVOCATE)

              AND:

                 MR. ABHINAV LAL
                 S/O CAPT. PRADEEP LAL
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
by ANJALI M      RESIDING AT NO.384, 16TH MAIN
Location: High 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
Court of
Karnataka        BENGALURU - 560 034
                                                        ...RESPONDENT
              (BY SRI. ANANTH MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
                  SRI. V. SANJAY KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

                   THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC,
              AGAINST THE ORDER DT.15.02.2025 PASSED ON IA NOs.1
              AND 2 IN O.S.NO.7759/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VI
              ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
              CCH-11 ALLOWING THE IA.NOS 1 AND 2 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1
              AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.
                                    -2-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:27566
                                              MFA No. 3278 of 2025


 HC-KAR



     THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

                            CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred under

Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 103 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "CPC"), challenging the

legality and correctness of the common order dated

15.02.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-11), in

O.S.No.7759/2023 whereby, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 filed by the

respondent - Abhinav Lal, is allowed, granting him interim

relief by restraining the appellant/Karnataka Golf

Association (hereinafter referred to as "KGA"), from

revoking the respondent's status as a "Permanent Member

Elect" and further directing KGA to permit the

respondent/plaintiff to continue availing the club facilities

during the pendency of the suit. The appellant, being

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

aggrieved by the said order of temporary injunction, has

approached this Court.

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this

appeal are as follows:

The respondents applied for permanent membership

in the KGA on 28.05.2007 and paid an initial entrance fee

of Rs.30,000/-. It is not in dispute, that the KGA

maintains a long waiting list for new memberships, and

the respondent's application matured for consideration in

the year 2022, almost after 15 years of wait. The

respondent was called for an interview on 22.11.2022

before the Managing Committee of the KGA. Upon

evaluation, the Managing Committee, vide resolution

dated 14.12.2022, designated the respondent as a

"Permanent Member Elect", subject to the fulfillment of

certain conditions within 1 year period ending on

13.12.2023. These conditions included, the requirement

to attend golf clinics, coaching sessions, and obtain a

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

certificate of proficiency, which were prerequisites for

being considered for confirmation as a permanent

member.

3. According to the respondent, he complied with

all the prescribed conditions and obtained the necessary

certificate of proficiency by 25.02.2023 from the KGA.

However, prior to that, the KGA received an anonymous

complaint alleging, that the respondent was facing serious

criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (POCSO Act), pertaining to

alleged offences involving his own minor daughter. The

KGA on 23.05.2025 had sent e-mail enabling the plaintiff

not to use facility of the Club with immediate effect and his

membership would be reviewed after disposal of the cases

filed against him. Based on this anonymous complaint,

the KGA, by its communication dated 31.10.2023,

suspended the respondent's status as "Permanent Member

Elect", citing potential harm to other members and their

children pending further examination of the matter.

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

4. Despite representation submitted by the

respondent and a letter by his father seeking

re-consideration, the Managing Committee of KGA passed

a final resolution on 31.10.2023, permanently revoking

the respondent's member's "Elect" status. The respondent

thereafter filed O.S.No.7759/2023 before the trial Court

seeking a declaration, that the revocation of his member

elect status was illegal, and in breach of the KGA's rules

and bylaws. He also sought consequential relief by way of

mandatory and perpetual injunction. In the interim, he

filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 seeking temporary injunction to

restore his status and allow continued access to club

facilities, which was granted by the learned trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant with all

vehemence submits that, because of the complaint against

respondent under the POCSO Act with regard to the sexual

harassment of his own daughter, when the case is pending

before the Sessions Court, as per the KGA rules, the order

is passed suspending the said membership. Now the

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

respondent/plaintiff cannot seek revocation of the same

stuff. When the Management Committee of the KGA has

taken unanimous decision to suspend his membership, the

respondent ought not have opposed it and filed a civil

suit.

6. In support of his submission, the learned

counsel for the appellant took this Court to various

provisions of the KGA, by-laws as well as some judgments

of the Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts. He

submits that, the learned trial Court is not right in allowing

I.A.No.1. He also took this Court to various findings of

the trial Court and the grounds made out in the appeal

memo. He submits that, when the membership itself is

not confirmed, the question of its revocation does not arise

at all. He prays to allow this appeal.

7. As against this submission, the learned Senior

counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the reasons

assigned by the trial Court. He submits that, there is no

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

rule as such in the by-laws that merely on the basis of a

unanimous complaint the membership can be suspended.

The respondent is not found guilty by any Competent

Criminal Court. He further submits that, the rules never

provide for such a suspension without affording an

opportunity to the respondent to face an enquiry. No

enquiry is conducted by the appellant. In support of his

submission, he too relies upon some of the same

judgments and submits that, there are no grounds to allow

this appeal.

8. I have carefully examined the impugned order

and rival submissions advanced in this appeal. It is trite

that, in the matters involving grant of temporary

injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, the

Court is required to examine

i. Whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case?

ii. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant?


                                               NC: 2025:KHC:27566



HC-KAR




         iii.    Whether   the   applicant     would        suffer
                 irreparable   injury   or    harm     if     the
                 injunction is not granted?

These well established principles must be applied

contextually and not in abstraction.

9. At the outset, the argument advanced by the

appellant that, the status of "Permanent Member Elect", is

merely conditional and non-vested, and that the Managing

Committee has unfettered discretion to revoke such status

at any stage, requires to be carefully scrutinized. It is true

that private clubs such as the KGA are governed by their

internal rules and by-laws, and the Courts must ordinarily

refrain from interfering in their internal decisions unless a

clear breach of statutory obligation, contractual promise,

or principles of natural justice is shown. The Supreme

Court in T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria, reported in 1962

SCC OnLine SC 47, relied upon by both the counsels, has

categorically held that, "Court must not interfere with the

domestic affairs of statutory associations. Except where

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

their action is tainted by illegality, arbitrariness or

malafide". However, it is equally well settled that,

autonomy in self-governance is not a license to act in an

arbitrary or discriminatory manner. Private associations

must act reasonably, fairly and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice. The right to associate also

implies a corresponding obligation to treat members or

aspirants with procedural fairness.

10. In the instant case, the respondent had waited

for over 15 years for his membership to mature. He

complied with all the procedural requirements restored by

the KGA, including attendance at clinics and securing a

certificate of proficiency, within the timeline fixed. His

designation as "Permanent Member Elect", conferred on

him and he has a legitimate expectation that, his

application would be considered for confirmation in the

absence of any violation of club rules. There is no evidence

placed on record that, the club rules so framed and relied

upon by both sides have been violated by the respondent.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

The revocation of his status, founded solely on an

anonymous complaint and without affording the

respondent an opportunity to explain or rebut the

allegations, is manifestly contrary to the principles of

natural justice. The maxim audi alteram partem, a pillar

of fairness, requires that no person shall be condemned

unheard. Even assuming that, the KGA is not a statutory

body, it cannot act arbitrarily or violate elementary

procedural safeguards while dealing with its members or

prospective members.

11. It is equally pertinent to note that, the

allegations against respondent under the POCSO Act are

pending adjudication, and the presumption of innocence

applies. The registration of an FIR or a pendency of a

criminal case cannot, by itself, constitute valid ground for

depriving a citizen of his rights, unless the concerned body

establishes that, such a pendency would directly impact

the safety or reputation of the institution. In the absence

of any such finding, the revocation appears to be based on

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

suspicion and public sentiment, rather than on concrete

material. Article 6(2) of the European Convention on

Human Rights (ECHR) establishes the principle of the

presumption of innocence, stating that everyone charged

with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until

proved guilty according to law. This means that the burden

of proof rests on the prosecution, and the accused is not

required to prove their innocence.

12. Now the contention of the appellant that, the

respondent had fraudulently misrepresented his place of

residence is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be

summarily adjudicated at the interlocutory stage. Already

the membership of the respondent is admitted by the

appellant and a letter to that effect has been issued. The

trial Court, in its wisdom, rightly deferred the

determination of this issue to be decided during the trial.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

13. In my considered view, the grant of temporary

injunction by the trial Court was neither perverse nor

based on any irrelevant consideration.

14. The balance of convenience also tilts in favour

of the respondent, after prolonged wait, had invested

time, money, and effort into completing the requirements

for membership. The denial of interim relief would cause

irreversible injury to the respondent, including reputational

damage and denial of the opportunity to enjoy the

privileges for which he had waited over a decade.

15. On the contrary, the appellant's concerns

regarding the presence of the respondent on its premises

can be addressed by imposing reasonable restrictions, if

necessary, until the disposal of the suit.

16. Thus, the trial Court's decision does not suffer

from any error, much less jurisdictional error or perversity,

so far as to warrant interference in this appeal. This Court

finds that the reasoning given by the learned trial Court is

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:27566

HC-KAR

well founded in law and supported by well-established

precedents. The interim relief granted is, infact, protective

of the respondent's legitimate expectation and is aimed at

maintaining status quo until the rights of the parties are

conclusively adjudicated in the suit. Therefore, the appeal

fails and is liable to be dismissed.

17. Resultantly, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal stands dismissed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 15.02.2025

passed by the VI Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-11),

in O.S.No.7759/2023 is hereby confirmed.