JUDGMENT

S J Kathawalla, J. -By the present Suit, the Plaintiff has sought to challenge an order dated 23rd April 2018 passed by the Board of Appeal of Defendant No.1 ("Impugned Order"). By the Impugned Order, the Plaintiff, a jockey, was inter alia prohibited for a period of 6 months from participating in races held by Defendant No.1.

2. The Plaintiff is a professional jockey with experience of over 20 years. Defendant No.1 is a private members club that holds horse races in Mumbai and Pune. Defendant No.2 is a trainer, who, along with his family is a co-owner of a race horse by the name of "Lord Commander". Defendant No.3 is the Board of Appeal of Defendant No.1.

3. Prior to dealing with the facts of the matter, a brief background to the functioning of Defendant No.1 is required.

BACKGROUND TO DEFENDANT NO.1 CLUB:

4. Defendant No.1 holds horse races in Mumbai and Pune under a license granted by the Government of Maharashtra. This license inter alia permits Defendant No.1 to license betting on horse races. Defendant No.1 employs "Stipendiary Stewards" possessing knowledge and experience in horse racing. The Stipendiary Stewards are present at every race held by Defendant No.1 and are charged with identifying any issue in respect of the conduct of a race. The recommendations of the Stipendiary Stewards are forwarded to the "Stewards of the Club" being a body comprising of the club members of Defendant No.1. Before recommending any issue to the Stewards of the Club, the Stipendiary Stewards conduct an initial inquiry into the matter, during the course of which inquiry, they may interview a jockey, the trainer and any other relevant person. The Stewards of the Club, upon receiving the notes of the preliminary enquiry from the Stipendiary Stewards, hold an enquiry into the allegations of wrongdoing and after hearing the person under enquiry, pass an order either disposing, exonerating, issuing a warning or an order of suspension. A person aggrieved by such order may file an appeal to the "Board of Appeal" of Defendant No.1 being Defendant No.3 herein.

FACTS:

5. The facts leading to the filing of the present Notice of Motion are as under:

5.1 On 15th March, 2018, the last race for the day was one titled "Race No.230". Lord Commander was the favourite to win this race. However, at the conclusion of the race, Lord Commander finished 4th. The race was won by another horse named "Fine Tune". Incidentally, Fine Tune is owned by one Mr. Jaydev Mody who is also the co-owner of Lord Commander.

5.2 At the conclusion of Race No.230, the Stipendiary Stewards called the Plaintiff for questioning in respect of his riding of Lord Commander in Race No.230. In response to the questions raised, the Plaintiff answered that he was instructed by Defendant No.2 (Lord Commander''s trainer) to sit well up, come into the straight, and do his best. To a specific question, he said that the pace of the race was too fast for Lord Commander and as such, he could not sit well up as instructed. It is common ground that post the race, the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 did not meet.

5.3 Pursuant to a request made by the Plaintiff, on 18th March, 2018, the Plaintiff was furnished with medical reports of Lord Commander. The Plaintiff claims to have discovered from the medical reports that Lord Commander was suffering from Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage Syndrome ("EIPHS")-Grade II and that he had been scoped on 27th November, 2017 and once again on 11th March, 2018 and advised rest on both occasions. The Plaintiff also claims that contrary to the instructions of the veterinarian of Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff was requested by Defendant No.2 to spurt Lord Commander on 12th March, 2018 and participate Lord Commander in Race No.230 on 15th March, 2018.

5.4 On 3rd April, 2018, a hearing was given to the Plaintiff. Defendant No.2 was also present at this hearing as also the Stipendiary Stewards. Post the hearing, the following minutes came to be recorded :

"all st