The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to the specific bar under Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the applicability of Section 241 of the said Act to the dispute.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - 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:-

On 12th June, 2019, the Secretary of the Calcutta Cricket and Football Club, opposite party No.1 herein served a notice to the petitioner directing him to show cause within seven (7) days from the receipt of the notice as to why he should not be held guilty for contracting an outstation player to play cricket for the club in violation of the CAB Rules and thereby causing financial loss to the club and violating Rule 5.2 of the Memorandum of Association of the club.

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:-

"It appears from the office report that Caveat Case No.1456 of 2019 is pending against this suit. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff has refused an order passed by the Hon''ble High Court at Bombay in Suresh Seth & Ors. vs. the National Sports Club of India but it appears that it is not applicable to this suit. Therefore, the interim prayer for ad-interim injunction of the plaintiff is not considered."

6. The above order was assailed by the petitioner in Miscellane