Interim injunction in club suspension dispute granted for breach of bye-laws, natural justice, and balance of convenience.

Interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was granted because the club suspension was prima facie inconsistent with the bye-laws and natural justice. The Court found that proper notice, required concurrence, and a duly initiated enquiry had not been followed, making the impugned suspension procedurally invalid. It also held that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner, as continued exclusion from the club would cause irreversible prejudice that could not be adequately repaired later. On that basis, the petitioner was entitled to interim protection and the revision was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the club suspension was passed in violation of the bye-laws and principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The suspension was found to have been issued without compliance with the club bye-laws governing suspension, including the requirement of proper notice and concurrence, and without a properly initiated enquiry. The material placed before the Court showed a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. The Court also held that the balance of convenience lay with the petitioner, since continued exclusion from the club would cause irreversible prejudice that could not be adequately restored later. The reasoning further noted that the respondent had acted inconsistently in comparable instances and that the impugned action could not be justified as a valid exercise of club administration when mandatory procedural safeguards were not followed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to interim injunction, and the revision was allowed.

---