TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nction restraining the respondent/defendant, their men, officials and agents etc., from implementing the suspension order till the disposal of the suit. 3. Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the petitioner is a past President and also an active member of the respondent Club. He was suspended by the respondent without following the bye-laws of the club and also against principles of natural justice and hence, the order itself is against law. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit challenging the suspension order and also filed the Interlocutory Application seeking interim injunction as stated above. However, the Court below simply adjourn the matter for filing vakalat and counter to 06.11.2013, without granting interim injunction. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that it has been established that there is a prima facie case made out and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and if injunction is not granted, the petitioner/plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Though the same has been established before the Court be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ye-law, without following principles of natural justice. 10. In the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 15319 of 2013, the petitioner/plaintiff has sought interim injunction against the suspension order passed by the respondent, on the ground that the same is not sustainable in law, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, the matter was adjourned for filing counter. 11. Mr. R. Sankara Subbu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent-club is empowered to suspend the petitioner, on account of the misconduct of the petitioner herein, who had blasted crackers at the club premises. Considering the serious misconduct, he was suspended by the respondent, hence, the Court below has not granted interim injunction against the suspension order. 12. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed that the petitioner herein had blasted crackers, at the club premises, however, according to him, it was the practice of some of the members of the club, hence, it cannot be construed as misconduct to suspend the petitioner from the club and he further submitted that some other members had also blasted cracke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the incident that had taken place on 22.09.2013 at 8.00 p.m. at the club premises and also for the violation of car entry and exit regulation and called for an explanation from him within five days from the date of receipt of the notice. It was also informed that if there is no explanation from the petitioner, further action would be taken under Rule 18 of the Bye-law. By letter, dated 30.09.2013, the petitioner herein has sent his reply denying the allegation levelled against him and sought 15 days time for submitting his explanation and by a communication sent by the Hony. Secretary, 5 days time was granted for submitting his explanation. Subsequently, as per order, dated 18.10.2013, the petitioner herein was suspended by the Honorary Secretary, with immediate effect from 19.10.2013 till the enquiry is over by the Disciplinary Committee. Subsequently, by another order passed by the Honorary Secretary, dated 01.11.2013, the suspension order was extended from 01.11.2013 pending enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee. In this order, the Honorary Secretary of the respondent-club, has stated that the suspension order is extended till the enquiry. 17. Mr. R. Sankara Subbu, learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....currence with the President or Vice-President in the absence of the President. As the provision, Rule 18(b) of the bye-laws, specifically stipulates the condition, it could have been specifically stated about the concurrence of the President or in his absence, the Vice-President and that the concurrence cannot be ratified by the President or Vice-President. 23. It is not in dispute that there was no Enquiry Committee constituted by the respondent club till date and the copy of the proceeding of the Disciplinary Committee was also not furnished to the petitioner. It is strange to note that further order, dated 01.11.2013 was also passed by the respondent, which reads as if it is a fresh suspension order but the order is only a continuation of the earlier order, as per the averments therein. Though the order was passed subsequently on 01.11.2013, it is an admitted fact that no enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, in order to follow principles of natural justice. As contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, copy of the resolution passed in the meeting and other material papers were not furnished. Without appointing any Enquiry Officer or Enquiry Committee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Committee at its next meeting. Here, it cannot be said that there is an extraordinary circumstances and further, there is no reference for the concurrence of the President or the Vice-President in the absence of President for the order of suspension of the petitioner and principles of natural justice was not followed by the respondent. As contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that there is a prima facie case made out in favour of the petitioner. 28. In similar cases, the respondent has accepted the 'sorry' or 'regret' made by the other similarly placed members of the club and therefore, the alleged occurrence of blasting of crackers in the club premises by the petitioner alone cannot be treated as a serious misconduct, warranting any severe punishment. It is also not in dispute that by the suspension order, the petitioner has been prevented from entering into the club since 19.10.2013 till date, in view of blasting of crackers at the premises. 29. Mr. R. Sankara Subbu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the petitioner herein be directed to tender regret or apology, so as to rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On the other hand, Mr. Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has established that there is prima facie case made out and balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner and if interim injunction is not granted, that would cause irreparable injury or loss to the petitioner and further, the respondent herein has passed the order against the bye-laws of the Club, violating principles of natural justice and therefore, to prevent the abuse of process by the respondent and to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner is entitled to approach this Court and prefer the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 33. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In M. Supraschand v. C. Dhandapani, (2010) 15 SCC 735, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while deciding a petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, apart from prima facie case, the Court has to consider the balance of convenience, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: The construction of the building has already been completed. Hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ends of justice, based on the prima facie case and balance of convenience being established, the Court has to grant interim injunction, to meet the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad, (2001) 5 SCC 568 has held thus: 6. It may not be appropriate for any court to hold a mini-trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction. As noticed by the Division Bench that there are two documents which indicated that there was prima facie case to be investigated. Unless the sale certificate is set aside or declared to be a nullity, the same has legal validity and force. It cannot be said that no right could be derived from such certificate. Secondly, when the contesting respondents were in possession as evidenced by the record of rights, it cannot be said that such possession is by a trespasser. The claim of the contesting respondents is in their own right.... 37. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector, (2012) 4 SCC 407, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: The democratic set-up of the country has always been recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution, like other features e.g., s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the petitioner, being a member of the club and the empowerment of the respondent as the administration of the club. Taking action against any member, the club has no right but it is a power to be exercised, according to law. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot say that disposal of the suit or revision would affect right of appeal. In fact, right of a member in a club or association should be safeguarded and action should be taken only for violation by the Club or Association, only in accordance with law. 41. In the light of various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that the respondent has taken a liberal view, so far as N.R. Madurakavi and K.V. Santhanakrishnan, other members of the club, whereas the petitioner is concerned, a serious view has been taken by the respondent, hence, he was suspended, without following procedures, without furnishing the material papers and mechanically the order of suspension was also extended by the another order, dated 11.11.2013, so as to extend the suspension beyond 15 days. 42. The Court below, without considering the fact that there is a prima facie case made out and balance of convenience is ....