Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.MUDAGAL, J.
SURAJ NARREDU S/O SATISH NAREDDU - APPELLANT
Vs.
BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED - RESPONDENT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4323/2021
Decided on : 10-11-2021
For the Appellant : SRI UDAYA HOLLA, HOLLA AND HOLLA
For the Respondent: SRI S.S.NAGANAND, SRI S.SRIRANGA
Point of law : Court cannot intervene in the matters of penalty imposed in the domestic enquiry, unless it is shown that the enquiring body exceeds its jurisdiction and not acted in good faith and that the delinquent had every opportunity of putting his case.
Headnote:
Karnataka Race Course Licensing Act - Rules 159(a) and (b) - Article 40(m) - Committee members - Election- whether he has any question to the said witness - Since he had not heard what all witness had deposed he was put in a situation to cross-examine touching testimony which was not within his knowledge - Club organizes horse race according to its calendar of events - As per those Rules and Articles of Association business of club is managed by members of the committee - Out of members of committee shall be the stewards and shall be committee members - Out of 9 stewards and out of committee members shall be elected as club members at Annual General Meeting - Club has the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City and Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department as Ex-Officio members (Stewards) of Managing Committee of club - As per Article 40(m) of said Articles of Association Committee has power to frame rules and regulations for conducting racing to alter or amend or suspend said rules and regulations –
Finding of the court : In judgment in MacLean’s case referred to supra relied on by learned Senior Counsel it was held that the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in a decision of a domestic Tribunal if in giving its decision the Tribunal has acted honestly in accordance with its own rules and in good faith - In judgment in Lennox Arthur Patrick case referred to supra relied upon by learned Senior Counsel it was held that the Court cannot intervene in the matters of penalty imposed in the domestic enquiry unless it is shown that the enquiring body exceeds its jurisdiction and not acted in good faith and that the delinquent had every opportunity of putting his case –
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the rejection of his application for temporary injunction, the plaintiff in O.S.No.3797/2021 has preferred the above appeal.
2. The defendant/Bangalore Turf Club Limited is a club licensed under the Karnataka Race Course Licensing Act of the Government of Karnataka. It is governed by the Memorandum and Articles of Association. For the purpose of conducting race meetings, club has framed the Rules of racing. Those rules provide for registration of horses, conducting horse race, issuing licence to the trainers, jockeys etc.
3. The club organizes the horse race according to its calendar of events. As per those Rules and the Articles of Association, the business of club is managed by the members of the committee. Out of 14 members of the committee, 9 shall be the stewards and 5 shall be committee members. 6 out of 9 stewards and 4 out of 5 committee members shall be elected as club members at the Annual General Meeting. The Club has the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City and Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department as Ex-Officio members (Stewards) of the Managing Committee of the club. As per Article 40(m) of the said Articles of Association, the Committee has the power to frame the rules and regulations for conducting racing, to alter or amend or suspend the said rules and regulations.
4. The appellant/plaintiff was licensed as jockey by the defendant club in the year 2002. On 05.02.2021, the respondent-club conducted horse race called “Stayers Trial Stakes” race (race 118). The appellant participated in the said race. He rode the horse by name Salazaar. In the said race, the appellant took the third post. On 09.02.2021, Stipendiary Steward of the Club called the appellant for enquiry on the ground that the appellant did not permit his mount to run on its merits.
5. On 10.02.2021 charge sheet No.693 dated 05.02.2021 was issued against the appellant alleging that he did not permit horse Salazaar to run on its own merits and thereby committed breach of Rule Nos.159 (a) and (b) of BTC Rules of Racing (for short ‘the Rules’). On 15.02.2021, the appellant submitted his defence statement to the Articles of Charge.
6. On 19.02.2021, the Stewards of the Club (‘Stewards Club’ for short) conducted the enquiry. In the said enquiry, the statements of one Irfan Ghatala, the trainer of the horse, Stipendiary Stewards and the appellant were said to be recorded. On 25.02.2021, the Stewards Club held that charges against the appellant were proved and disqualified him from 05.03.2021 to 30.04.2021. It was further ordered that if he applies for jockey’s license, such application shall be considered after 05.07.2021. He was also fined to a sum of Rs.50,000/-for contravention of Rules 159(a) and (b) of the Rules. The proceeding/order of disqualifying was served on the appellant on 01.03.2021.
7. Rule 47 (a) of the Rules provides for an appeal against such order of the Stewards Club. Rules 47 to 49 of the Rules provide for the procedure for hearing such appeals. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Board of Appeal against the order of his disqualification.
8. The Board of Appeal by it’s order dated 26th March 2021 held as follows:
“Thereafter, the Board of appeal came to the conclusion that there has not been a proper appreciation of the evidence presented during the course of enquiry. The conclusion and findings on each of the charges framed must be arrived at independently and recorded accordingly. The evidence presented must be weighed by applying their mind independently.
The Board of Appeal therefore remands the entire case back to the Stewards of the Club for a fresh enquiry and disposal by arriving at clear findings as to the contravention of Rule No.159 (a) and (b), independent of the findings of the Stipendiary Steward.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Board of Appeal had stayed the Stewards Club’s order of punishment pending appeal and while remanding the matter extended that order further till consideration of the mat
