Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 1876
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
Mumbai Cricket Association
Versus
Ratnakar Shivram Shetty & Others
Appeal From Order (Stamp) No. 25497 of 2013 With CAAST/25580 of 2013
Decided on: 21-09-2013
For the Appellant:Aspi Chinoy, Sr. Adv. With Vaibhav J. Mehta, Ms. Deepti B. Mistry i/by M/s. Vaishnav Mehta & Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, E.P. Bharucha, Sr. Adv. With Firoz Bharucha, Sachin Mandlik, Vishal Shriyan i/by Khaitan & Co., R19, A.N. Narula, Advocates, R2 to R18 & R20, Served.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair procedures and transparency in private bodies, highlighting the need for defined penalty procedures and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Rule - Mumbai Cricket Association - Societies Registration Act, 1860, Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) challenged an order restraining them from expelling a member for five years. The member had raised concerns about the misuse of MCA funds for ticket purchases and was subsequently expelled by the Managing Committee (MC) without a fair procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MCA's actions were predetermined, lacked transparency, and violated principles of natural justice. The court also noted that the MCA's rules were silent on the procedure for imposing penalties and did not provide for an appellate forum.
Issues: The issues included the lack of fair procedure in the expulsion of the member, the absence of a defined penalty procedure in the MCA's rules, and the violation of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the MCA's actions were arbitrary, predetermined, and lacked transparency, violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the importance of following fair procedures, especially in private bodies, and noted that the absence of penalty procedures in the MCA's rules was a significant flaw.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the lower court's order, and vacated the stay on the lower court's decision. The court also directed the MCA to accept the member's nomination, subject to the decision of a higher court.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally in view of an urgency.
2. Respondents 2 to 18 are supporting members of Appellant-original Defendant No.1 served privately and in view of averments made in para 4 and as the statement is made that they will file vakalatnama and as the same one Advocate appeared in the trial court, by Tuesday, 24 September 2013. They are formal parties. No separate reliefs claimed against these members. Mr. A.N. Narula, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.19. Respondent No.20 has now nominated Respondent No.1/original Plaintiff served.
THE CASE
3. The Appellant-Mumbai Cricket Association (the MCA), Defendant No.1, has challenged Order dated 7 September 2013 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, in favour of Respondent No.1, Plaintiff, the operative part of which is as under :
“Notice of Motion No.2484/13 is partly made absolute. Defendant No.1 is restrained by way of temporary injunction from acting upon their decision to expel the plaintiff for a period of five years during the pendency of the suit.
Hearing of the suit is expedited.”
4. Respondent No.1 has filed a Suit against the Appellant and its members and prayed that notice dated 3 June 2013 imposing five years ban from participating in any matter pertaining to the activities be declared illegal and bad in law and prayed to set aside the same. The prayers are also made for an interim relief/protection through a Notice of Motion. The parties have filed reply, rejoinder and sur-rejoinder. Respondents 19 and 20 joined later. After hearing both the parties on 7 September 2013, the impugned order was passed and, therefore, this Appeal from Order.
5. The Appellant (the MCA) is a registered Association under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Association is governed by the Memorandum of Association, Rules, Bye-laws. The general body of Association consists of not more than 350 ordinary members, Clubs classified in 3 categories. No individual can be the member of the Club/Association. The Wilson College Gymkhana and others are ordinary members of the Appellant and so also Respondent No.20.
6. Respondent No.1 has been involved in Cricket administration since many years. He was office bearer of the MCA for several years. He was on various Committees of Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) and was the tournament director of ICC Champions Trophy 2006 and ICC World Cup 2011.
7. There was a T-20 match between India and Pakistan hosted by the Gujarat Cricket Association (GCA) on 28 December 2012 at Ahmedabad. As per the Appellant, in 2012 Respondent No.1, was the representative of the Wilson College Gymkhana on MCA. On 28 December 2012, T20 Match played between India & Pakistan at Ahmedabad, hosted by GCA. Although the MCA was entitled to 150 tickets, there was hardly any demand for the same. The Secretary, Saurashtra Cricket Association (SCA) requested MCA to give the tickets which were not availed of by MCA Members as there was a demand for the same. Accordingly, 150 tickets were bought/paid for by MCA. Of these only two were booked by a member of MCA on 13-12-2012 and the balance 148 were handed over to one Shapath Shah at the request of the Secretary SCA. MCA received back the amount it had paid for the same.
8. On 15 December 2012, the Joint Honorary Secretary of MCA wrote to GCA and booked 150 tickets for the Match and in furtherance of such booking, also paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- vide a Demand Draft. On 26 December 2012, the Joint Honourary Secretary wrote to the Honourary Secretary, GCA, instructing him to hand over 150 tickets booked by MCA to Mr. Shapath Shah, a resident of Ahmedabad who was neither a member nor a representative of any member of MCA. As per Respondent No.1, on January 5, 2012 one Mr. Jayveer Shah, a resident of Mumbai, visited the office of MCA and gave a personal cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-. MCA accepted the cheque as a reimburse
