Interim injunctions cannot be granted if they effectively provide the main relief sought in civil suits.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , (for short, "CPC"), by the appellant challenging the order dated 23.06.2025 passed by the Court of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judges, Bengaluru (CCH-23), in O.S.No.4085/2025, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the appellant’s application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from giving effect to the termination of his employment.

2. The appellant, Sri. B.N. Shivaprakash, was appointed as Under Study Assistant Track Manager by the respondent - Bengaluru Turf Club Ltd., on 05.08.2012. His services were confirmed as Assistant Track Manager on 26.03.2014. Subsequently, he was elevated to the post of Administrator and Senior Clerk of the course with effect from 01.10.2021. During this period, the appellant also discharged additional functions and responsibilities, such as secretary to race meetings, secretary general of the turf authorities of India and other allied administrative assignments. The appellant claims that, his performance remained unblemished and had earned him appreciation and recognition from the Bengaluru Turf Club as well as other racing institutions, including the Royal Western India Turf Club. According to the appellant, the professional environment changed considerably following the appointment of a new Chief Executive Officer and Secretary on 23.06.2022. The appellant contends that, after the said officer took charge, there was a deliberate effort to curtail his functions, reduce his responsibilities, and engineering false complaints against him with the intention of targeting him for removal. It is alleged that, in the month of September 2023, the appellant was allegedly demoted arbitrarily. One of the incidents central to the appellant's grievance occurred during Managing Committee Meeting No. 35/2023-24 held on 12.09.2024, when the appellant raised scientifically grounded objections to the Club's proposal to procure uncertified Coco peat-based manure from a firm named M/s Virat Smart Soil in preference to a certified supplier, namely Dynasuper - Dynamic Lifter. The appellant asserts that, his objection, although professional and scientifically supported, caused discomfort among certain committee members and eventually led to disciplinary action being initiated against him.

3. On 08.10.2024, one Mr. Jagadish K.A., a member of the interim committee, lodged a complaint alleging procedural and other irregularities in the discharge of course maintenance responsibilities. Following this, the Managing Committee, in Meeting No. 37/2023-24 held on 09.10.2024, resolved to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. Although the minutes of the said meeting reportedly recorded only the issuance of a show cause notice, the appellant was placed under suspension by notice dated 21.10.2024. It is the appellant’s case that, such suspension was unilateral and unauthorised, and that, the several committee members later admitted that, no resolution had been passed to suspend him. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant submitted a detailed explanation, and despite having co-operated fully with the disciplinary process, he contends that, the process was manipulated to secure a predetermined outcome against him.

4. On 21.11.2024, a formal charge sheet was issued to the appellant. A domestic enquiry was commenced and continued for several months, extending over 40 sittings between November 2024 and May 2025. During the course of the enquiry, the appellant examined several witnesses, including DWs. 1 to 5