High Court allows revision, sets aside District Judge's order, directs trial court to hear injunction application promptly.

The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the judgment and order of the District Judge, South 24 Parganas. The court held that the suit was maintainable under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. It directed the trial court to hear the application for injunction on merit within one month, emphasizing that the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred under the Companies Act, 2013, as the case involved individual grievances, not issues of oppression or mismanagement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.
2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in light of Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013.
3. Granting of ad-interim injunction in favor of the petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the order dated 24th July 2019, which dismissed his appeal and held that the suit filed was not maintainable. The petitioner argued that his suit, which sought a declaration that his suspension from the club was null and void, was maintainable under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. He contended that the Companies Act, 2013, did not apply to his case as it concerned individual grievances and not the management or control of the company. The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument, stating that the cause of action for the subsequent suit arose after the institution of the first suit, thus making the second suit maintainable.

2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The court examined whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, which bars civil courts from adjudicating matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The petitioner argued that his case did not involve issues of oppression or mismanagement under Section 241 of the Companies Act but rather the legality of his suspension, which did not affect the management of the club. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the suspension of an individual member did not fall within the jurisdiction of the NCLT and that the civil court's jurisdiction could not be said to be barred.

3. Granting of Ad-interim Injunction:
The petitioner sought an ad-interim injunction to restrain the club from giving effect to the suspension order. The trial court had refused the injunction on the grounds of a pending caveat and the non-applicability of a cited precedent. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was not maintainable and that the question of granting an interim injunction did not arise. The High Court found that the trial judge had not disposed of the application for injunction on merit and directed the trial court to hear the application for injunction on merit within one month.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the judgment and order of the District Judge, South 24 Parganas. The court held that the suit was maintainable and directed the trial court to hear the application for injunction on merit. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the civil court could not be said to be barred under the Companies Act, 2013, as the case concerned individual grievances and not issues of oppression or mismanagement.

---