Civil court jurisdiction over club member suspension remains open where Companies Act oppression and mismanagement remedies are not engaged.

A civil suit challenging suspension of an individual club member was maintainable because the dispute did not amount to oppression, mismanagement, or a class action under Sections 241, 244 and 245 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal route was not shown to be the exclusive forum, especially as the proviso to Section 244 gives discretionary waiver power, so Section 430 did not expressly or impliedly exclude the civil court's ordinary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The civil court's jurisdiction was therefore not barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit challenging the suspension of a club member was maintainable and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The dispute concerned an individual member's suspension from the club and did not amount to a complaint of oppression, mismanagement, or class action falling within the special regime of Sections 241, 244, and 245 of the Companies Act, 2013. The remedy before the Tribunal was not shown to be the exclusive forum, particularly since the proviso to Section 244 confers a discretionary power on the Tribunal to waive the eligibility requirements. In such circumstances, the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could not be treated as expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Conclusion: The suit was held maintainable and the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dispute relates to the suspension of an individual member and does not invoke oppression, mismanagement, or a true class action, the civil court's jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not excluded merely because the Companies Act, 2013 provides a discretionary remedial route to the Tribunal.

---