Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.
B.V. Chandre Gowda - Appellant
Versus
Indiranagar Club - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8315 of 2020
Decided On : 06-07-2020
Civil Procedure Code - Rule 3 - Order XXXIX - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Members of Managing Committee of Club - Suspension from Membership of Club as illegal - Facts of case are plaintiffs and defendants No. 6 to 9 are members of Managing Committee of Club - Defendant No.2 is President defendant No.3 is Secretary defendant No.4 is Vice President and defendant No.5 is Treasurer of Club respectively - On November a Managing Committee Meeting was held with regard to an anonymous petition containing allegation of misuse of party halls causing financial loss to Club - On December defendants No. 2 and 3 called for an emergency meeting to take certain decisions to cancel appointment of a Three-member Committee - On December Committee submitted its Report - On January another emergency meeting of Managing Committee was held - According to plaintiffs meeting held on January was legally called and lawful deliberations were conducted – Subsequently on February Vice President Treasurer Managing Committee Member were suspended - On February defendants No.2, 3, 8 and 9 who were only members present in meeting passed a resolution to alter Bank operation mandates given to various Banks in which Club maintains its accounts – Held, Learned Senior Advocate submitted that purported suspension of defendants No. 4 5 and 7 in Meeting held on February is grossly illegal - There are in all Managing Committee Members - Minimum quorum required to conduct any meeting is six members - However on February only four members namely defendants No. 2 3 8 and 9 have passed illegal resolution to alter Bank Operation Mandates given to various Banks in which Club maintains its accounts - Resultant position is members now authorized to operate Bank accounts can misuse funds of Club – Therefore there is grave urgency and it merits grant of interim orders - Learned Trial Judge without appreciating gravity of situation and without recording any reasons for not granting interim orders has merely directed suit summons – Therefore impugned order is unsustainable in law - Accordingly he prayed for allowing this writ petition - He placed reliance on following two authorities - Learned Senior Advocate for caveat or/respondents opposing writ petitions submitted that there are serious allegations of sexual harassment against defendants No. 4, 5 and 7 - A decision was taken in Special General Body Meeting on February to place said defendants under suspension - defendant No.4 has already filed before City Civil Court inter alia praying for a judgment and decree to declare Special General Body Meeting held on February and communication declaring his suspension from Membership of Club as illegal - Along with plaint defendant No.4 also filed inter locater applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 seeking interim orders - Said applications have been supported by his Affidavits as also defendants No. 5 and 7 - Trial Court has refused to grant any interim order - Defendants therein have entered appearance and next date of hearing is July - Relief sought for in instant suit in substance is similar to the relief sought - Further argued that under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure Court is duty bound to direct notice of application to be given to opposite party except where it appears that object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay - He further argued that plaintiffs have presented instant suit on June seeking a declaration that decision taken on February to suspend defendants No. 4, 5 and 7 as illegal after lapse of four months - Therefore there is no urgency in matter - Accordingly he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition - Court have carefully considered rival contentions and perused records - Grievance of plaintiffs is Trial Court has not granted ex parte interim injunction orders on their applications - As recorded hereinabove learned Trial Judge has ordered only notice - Main prayer in suit is for declaration that meeting held on February and decisions taken therein are illegal – Admittedly suit has been presented on June is right in his submission that the prayer contained filed by defendant No.4 against Club are in substance similar to those contained in instant suit - Said suit is in progress – Further instant suit has been filed after lapse of four months - Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure mandates issuance of notice to defendants except where it appears to Court that delay in granting injunction would defeat object - Further in paragraph it is held that failure to render necessary findings to support its order would also be a jurisdictional error liable to correction – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
P S Dinesh Kumar, J. - Heard Shri. S.S. Ramdas, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and Shri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is presented by plaintiffs in O.S. No.2468/2020 challenging order dated 12th June 2020 passed by the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge directing only suit summons to defendants and not granting ex parte injunction orders.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status in the original suit.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, plaintiffs and defendants No. 6 to 9 are members of the Managing Committee of the Indiranagar Club. Defendant No.2 is the President, defendant No.3 is Secretary, defendant No.4 is Vice President and defendant No.5 is the Treasurer of the Club respectively.
5. On 28th November 2019, a Managing Committee Meeting was held with regard to an anonymous petition containing allegation of misuse of party halls causing financial loss to the Club. On 3rd December 2019, defendants No. 2 and 3 called for an emergency meeting to take certain decisions to cancel the appointment of a Three-member Committee. On 5th December 2019, the Committee submitted its Report. On 16th January 2020, another emergency meeting of the Managing Committee was held. According to the plaintiffs, the meeting held on 16th January 2020 was legally called and lawful deliberations were conducted. Subsequently, on 9th February 2020, the Vice President (defendant No.4), the Treasurer (defendant No.5) and (defendant No.7) the Managing Committee Member were suspended. On 29th February 2020, defendants No.2, 3, 8 and 9 who were the only members present in the meeting, passed a resolution to alter the Bank operation mandates given to various Banks in which Club maintains its accounts.
6. With the above pleadings on facts, plaintiffs filed the instant suit before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru for a judgment and decree inter alia to declare the Special General Body Meeting held on 9th February 2019 and the decision taken therein to suspend defendants 4, 5 and 7 as illegal.
7. The learned City Civil Judge, on 12th June 2020 has passed the following order:
"Perused, plaint & I.As. and documents. Considering the nature of interim relief sought, it is just and necessary to hear the defendants prior to grant of any interim order.
Issue emergent suit summons to defendants if P.F. furnished.
By 29/06.'
Sd/- 12/6"
8. Plaintiffs are aggrieved that learned Trial Judge has not considered and granted ex parte interim orders on their applications seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, to restrain the defendants from enforcing suspension of defendants No. 4, 5 and 7; to direct defendants No.2 and 3 to convene Managing Committee Meeting within seven days and to restrain defendants No. 2 and 3 from operating all Bank accounts of the Club. Hence, this writ petition.
9. Shri.Ramadas, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the purported suspension of defendants No. 4, 5 and 7 in the Meeting held on 9th February 2020 is grossly illegal. There are in all 13 Managing Committee Members. The minimum quorum required to conduct any meeting is six members. However, on 29th February 2020, only four members namely defendants No. 2, 3, 8 and 9 have passed the illegal resolution to alter the Bank Operation Mandates given to various Banks in which the Club maintains its accounts. The resultant position is, the members now authorized to operate the Bank accounts can misuse the funds of the Club. Therefore, there is grave urgency and it merits grant of interim orders. The learned Trial Judge, without appreciating the gravity of situation and without recording any reasons for not granting the interim orders has merely directed suit summons. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this writ petition. He placed reliance on following tw
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
