Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Mr. Karan Singh Grewal – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Calcutta Cricket & Football Club & Ors. – Respondents
C.O 2822 of 2019
Decided on : 30-07-2020
Companies Act, 2013 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 430 - The court discussed the maintainability of the suit filed by the petitioner under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. The court also considered the applicability of Section 241 of the said Act and its relevance to the dispute between the parties. The court highlighted the nature of the dispute and the lack of jurisdictional bar on the civil court under the Companies Act, 2013.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of suspension passed by the Calcutta Cricket and Football Club. The club alleged that the petitioner engaged an outstation player in violation of rules, causing financial loss and misconduct. The petitioner filed Title Suit No.749 of 2019, withdrew it, and filed Title Suit No.781 of 2019. The club concluded a disciplinary proceeding during the pendency of the suit, resulting in a one-year suspension of the petitioner's membership. The petitioner sought an ad-interim injunction, which was refused by the trial judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable and the impugned order dismissing the appeal was set aside. The court directed the trial judge to hear the application for injunction on merit within one month.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, the refusal of ad-interim injunction, and the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding during the pendency of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the suit was not barred under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the refusal of ad-interim injunction was not justified. The court also emphasized the lack of jurisdictional bar on the civil court under the Companies Act, 2013.
Final Decision: The instant revision was allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas in Miscellaneous Appeal No.161 of 2019 was set aside. The trial judge was directed to hear the application for injunction on merit within one month.
JUDGMENT :
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
1. The plaintiff of Title Suit No.782 of 2019 (hereafter described as the petitioner) has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of an order dated 24th July, 2019 passed by the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore in Miscellaneous Appeal No.161 of 2019 dismissing the said appeal holding, inter alia, that the suit filed by the petitioner was not maintainable; secondly, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of specific bar under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as ‘the said Act’); and thirdly, question of granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner does not arise at all in a suit which is not otherwise maintainable.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the following facts are necessary to be recorded for proper adjudication of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:-
The petitioner immediately on 18th June, 2019 filed Title suit No.749 of 2019 challenging the aforesaid show cause notice with a prayer for declaration that the said notice was bad, illegal and inoperative and could not be given effect to and permanent injunction.
However, during the pendency of the suit the petitioner was suspended from his membership with effect from 19th June, 2019.
Since the club issued interim suspension order against the petitioner, he withdrew Title Suit No.749 of 2019.
On the selfsame date, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No.781 of 2019 challenging the interim order of suspension dated 19th June, 2019 praying for following reliefs:
a. Leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
b. Decree for declaration that the suspension order dated June 19, 2019 is null and void and direction that the same be delivered up and cancelled;
c. Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from taking any steps or further steps on the basis of or giving any effect or further effect to the suspension order dated June, 19, 2019;
d. Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from taking any other or further coercive steps against the plaintiff pursuant to notice dated June 12, 2019 and Suspension Order dated June 19, 2019;
e. Costs of this suit;
f. Any further or other reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled to in law and in equity.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the Club issued permanent order of suspension on 31st July, 2019. The petitioner has filed an application for amendment of plaint of Title Suit No.781 of 2019 praying for incorporation of the aforesaid subsequent event.
4. In Title Suit No.781 of 2019, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary as well as ad-interim injunction restraining the opposite parties from giving effect to the interim order of suspension dated 19th June, 2019.
5. By an order dated 21st June, 2019, the learned Trial Judge refused to grant ad interim order of injunction on the following ground:-
6. The above order was assailed by the petitioner in Miscellaneous Appeal No.16
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
