1968 Supreme(Cal) 157

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bijayesh Mukherji
UJJAL TALUKDAR - Appellant
Versus
NETAI CHAND KOLEY - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 1295  Of  1968
Decided On : JULY 15, 1968

The jurisdiction of a civil court to interfere with the decision of a domestic tribunal is limited to cases where the tribunal has acted beyond its jurisdiction, violated the principles of natural justice, or acted dishonestly.

Headnote:

CRICKET - TOURNAMENT - ABANDONED MATCH - REPLAY - JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - CAUSE OF ACTION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DISHONESTY - RULES OF THE TOURNAMENT - INTERPRETATION - CONTRACT - COURT'S JURISDICTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - GRANT OF - CONDITIONS.

Fact of the Case:

Belgachia United Club and George Telegraph Sports Club, both belonging to Group "e" of the Second Division League, played a one-day cricket match on January 14, 1968, at George Telegraph Sports ground in the Calcutta Maidan. Due to rains, the game had to be stopped by the Umpire at 12.05 hours. Belgachia requested the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) to arrange for a replay of the match, but CAB decided that the match would be reckoned as a drawn game, with the points equally divided between the two teams. Belgachia appealed to CAB's Working Committee, which upheld the decision of the Tournament Committee and rejected Belgachia's appeal. Belgachia filed a suit in the Court of a Munsiff at Sealdah for, amongst others, a declaration that the decision of the CAB Working Committee was bad at law and inoperative, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the CAB from holding the Second Division Cricket League Championship by keeping out Belgachia. The Munsiff granted a temporary injunction, but the Appellate Judge reversed the order and rejected the prayer for a temporary injunction. Belgachia filed a revision petition in the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Court of the Munsiff at Sealdah did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, as the cause of action arose at the Calcutta Maidan, which was beyond the territorial limits of the Sealdah Court's jurisdiction. 2. The suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that it related to nothing of a civil nature. 3. The CAB and its committees acted within their jurisdiction in deciding that the match would be reckoned as a drawn game. 4. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice in the decision-making process of the CAB. 5. There was no evidence to support the allegation that the CAB acted dishonestly in making the decision. 6. The CAB Working Committee did not misinterpret the rules of the tournament in deciding that the match would be reckoned as a drawn game. 7. The decision of the CAB Working Committee was final and binding on the parties concerned, as per the rules of the CAB. 8. Belgachia did not have a prima facie case in support of the right claimed and was not entitled to a temporary injunction.

Issues: 1. Whether the Court of the Munsiff at Sealdah had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. Whether the suit was maintainable in view of the fact that it related to nothing of a civil nature. 3. Whether the CAB and its committees acted within their jurisdiction in deciding that the match would be reckoned as a drawn game. 4. Whether there was any violation of the principles of natural justice in the decision-making process of the CAB. 5. Whether there was any evidence to support the allegation that the CAB acted dishonestly in making the decision. 6. Whether the CAB Working Committee misconstrued the rules of the tournament in deciding that the match would be reckoned as a drawn game. 7. Whether the decision of the CAB Working Committee was final and binding on the parties concerned. 8. Whether Belgachia had a prima facie case in support of the right claimed and was entitled to a temporary injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The cause of action for a suit arises where the essential facts necessary to be proved by the plaintiff in order to succeed in the suit occur. In the present case, the essential facts occurred at the Calcutta Maidan, which was beyond the territorial limits of the Sealdah Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Sealdah Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. A suit is of a civil nature if it relates to a matter which is capable of being adjudicated upon by a civil court. In the present case, the suit related to a dispute between Belgachia and CAB, which was a domestic body. Such a dispute is not capable of being adjudicated upon by a civil court. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that it related to nothing of a civil nature. 3. The CAB and its committees acted within their jurisdiction in deciding that the match would be reckoned as a drawn game. The rules of the tournament gave the CAB the authority to make such a decision. 4. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice in the decision-making process of the CAB. The CAB gave Belgachia an opportunity to present its case and considered all the relevant factors before making its decision. 5. There was no evidence to support the allegation that the CAB acted dishonestly in making the decision. 6. The CAB Working Committee did not misinterpret the rules of the tournament in deciding that the match would be reckoned as a drawn game. The rules were ambiguous, but the CAB's interpretation was reasonable. 7. The decision of the CAB Working Committee was final and binding on the parties concerned, as per the rules of the CAB. 8. Belgachia did not have a prima facie case in support of the right claimed and was not entitled to a temporary injunction. The evidence showed that Belgachia had no chance of winning the suit.

Final Decision: The rule was discharged with costs.