OOTACAMUND CLUB Vs. H S MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The allegations contained in I.A. No. 484 of 2008 (C.R.P.(PD). No. 1021 of 2009) in brief are as follows: 1(a) The defendant Club was incorporated in the year 1889 under the provisions of Indian Companies Act 1882. The Articles of Association described the classes of members in detail. The business and affairs of the Club are to be maintained by a committee consisting of a President and 12 other members who are to be elected annually at every Annual General Meeting. The petitioner is a permanent member having been elected on 24.11.1994. He has been noticing that the bye laws of the Club was manoeuvred for the advantage of committee members and every time of such flouting of the rights and he used to bring the same to the notice of the committee. But, they were dismissed as minor incidents. The secretary of the Club on 10.9.2001, while the petitioner was in the dance floor, demanded him to leave the dance floor and wear his jacket. While the Club was celebrating the Planters Ball on that day and while dancing he had removed his jacket, the petitioner brought the conduct of the secretary to the President. Totally suppressing his complaint, the Club issued notice on 6.10.2001 on the strength of complaint by the secretary stating that an enquiry would be held on 22.10.2001. Inspite of his unconditional apology, the Club suspended him on 27.10.2001 for three months. 1(b) Yet another incident took place while passing of the accounts at the Annual General Meeting on 29.5.2004. The petitioner forwarded queries on 14.6.2004 as to the accounts. He brought the irregularities to the notice of the Registrar of Companies since he had raised the issue of accounts invoking Agenda 5. The committee of the Club had deliberately omitted this. His suggestion for incorporating changes in the bye laws has been met with a stony silence. Suggestions are to the effect that ordinary members could question the actions of committee members, hence they were not tabled before the Annual General Meeting. 1(c) With reference to the Annual General Meeting to be held on 28.5.2005, the petitioner submitted his candidature to the post of committee member on 16.5.2005 together with his nomination signed by a proposer. He sent 65 proxy forms endorsed in his favour for the said Annual General Meeting. The secretary of the Club had endorsed that some of the proxies sent by the petitioner were revoked by the members. He has no authority to scrutinise and reject the proxy forms and it is only the responsibility of the scrutinising committee. The petitioner was declared as not elected in the said meeting. Again, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Registrar of Companies as to the commissions and omissions committed by the committee and brought out various discrepancies. The elections have not been held in a fair and proper manner. 1(d) During the inspection several irregularities in the books of accounts have come to light and flagrant violations too. Out of 21 violations, the Club applied for compounding 12 offences of which 4 offences were compounded. On 16.9.2007, in the presence of President and other committee members, the staff of the Club served liquor from three outlets. In addition to this, the Club was collecting corkage as is borne out by the secretary's circular. The petitioner sought clarification from the president on this issue but of no avail and hence he was forced to approach Excise Department for clarification. He lodged a complaint with regard to the violation and since there was no response, he approached the High Court, Madras, for direction and directions were issued in writ petitions filed by this petitioner. 1(e) The complaints lodged against the Club by the petitioner are genuine and have resulted in their being subjected to departmental action. In order to victimise him for the activities, the Club issued a show cause notice on 24.9.2008. It is nothing else but an act of vin-dictiveness, since he has been pointing out severe violations and he also filed a suit. Hence, an Ad-interim injunction restraining the Club and its office bearers, etc., in any manner initiating any actions against him.

(2.) In the counter filed by the defendant Club the following are stated: 2(a) The petitioner filed O.S. No. 182 of 2008 which is for framing a scheme for the management and administration of the Ootacamund Club. Inasmuch as this suit is a follow-up of the same suit instituted earlier, this suit also suffers from illegality and non- maintainability, and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. 2(b) The issuance of show cause notice is not in violation of any order of the Court and in any event no injunction or stay order could be obtained. Law is very clear that taking of disciplinary action cannot be called into question in a civil Court, moreso in the nascent stage when only the show cause notice had been issued, and the petitioner has since been placed under suspension pending further disciplinary action under the bye laws of the Club. 2(c) The prayer in the petition is not maintainable which is omnibus in nature and even the Almighty cannot grant such relief. The prayer is beyond the scope of the Honourable Court and the petition is totally vexatious which seeks to interfere with the internal management of a private social club. The petitioner himself has stated in writing that he will not make use of the Club till further orders and the petition is infructuous and liable to be dismissed.

(3.) In the affidavit filed by the defendant Club in I.A. No. 501 of 2008 (C.R.P.(PD) No. 1022 of 2008), following are the grounds under which relief under Order 7 Rule 11 is prayed for: The respondent as plaintiff has filed the above suit, which is clearly outside the scope of the Civil Court's jurisdiction for the following reasons: