The court ruled that the votes required for the resolution must derive from those present at the time of voting, clarifying procedural legitimacy for future meetings.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. MFA No.7297/2025 is filed by defendant No.1-Bowring Institute and MFA No.7528/2025 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs questioning the order passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6392/2025 dated 19.09.2025 by the VIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15), at Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court has granted an order of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 13 from giving effect to the resolution passed at the Special General Meeting held on 31.08.2025 including the resolution approving the proposed acquisition of suit schedule properties during the pendency of the suit and also it was made clear that the order will not come in the way of the defendant Nos.1 and 13 from proceeding with the proposal after obtaining a fresh approval of the General Body Meeting in the light of the observations made in the order. The MFA No.7528/2025 is filed by the plaintiffs so far as against giving liberty to proceed with proposal after obtaining a fresh approval of the General Body Meeting.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the following reliefs:

A. Declare that the resolutions purportedly passed at the Special General Meeting held on 31.08.2025, including the resolution approving the proposed acquisition of the Schedule Properties, as illegal, null, void, and unenforceable in law;

B. Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, representatives, and any persons acting on their behalf from disbursing, alienating, transferring, or otherwise dealing with any funds of the Club in relation to the Schedule Properties, including executing or facilitating any conveyance, agreement, or transaction pertaining thereto;

C. Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the First to Fifteenth Defendants from taking any coercive, retaliatory or punitive steps including disciplinary action against the plaintiffs, including suspension or other adverse action, on account of their raising objections to the proposed project or filing of the present suit;

D. Grant a decree of mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to immediately restore the sum paid to the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth Defendant, into the account of the First Defendant along with applicable interest, which was withdrawn or committed in breach of the Rules of the Club and without the approval of the General Body, in furtherance of the proposed project, and in exercise of their mala fide intentions;

E. Direct the Second to Fifteenth Defendants, jointly and severally, to act in accordance with the Rules of the Club in all matters relating to the governance, expenditure, and decision-making of the Club, and to account for all acts, cheques, MoUs, and transactions already undertaken in respect of the proposed project, including restoring any sums misappropriated or irregularly committed;

F. Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Second to Fifteenth Defendant from contesting further elections or occupying or holding any position in the Managing Committee in violation of the Rules of the Club:

G. Declare the acts of the Second to Fifteenth Defendants, as pleaded herein, constitute mala fide conduct, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duties towards the members of the Club, thereby making them personally liable for any losse