The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for due process and compliance with the provisions of Articles 34 and 35 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association before revoking/cancelling membership.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration that he is entitled to continue as a member of the defendant Company and that the decisions made by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are bad in law and illegal, seeking permanent injunction against removal/revocation of plaintiff’s membership with the defendants.

2. Brief facts as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is a business man who plays golf and has a keen interest in the game. Defendant No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It runs a club popularly known as ‘Delhi Golf Club’ where its members are provided with facilities such as use of a 18 hole golf course, dining etc.

3. The plaintiff admittedly applied to the defendant No. 1 on 7th August, 2009 along with a cheque of Rs.44,120/- however no decision was taken for a long time. On 16th April, 2014 the plaintiff received a communication from defendant No. 2 approving nomination of ‘Out of Turn’ regular membership. Upon the receipt of the said communication, the plaintiff applied afresh to defendant No. 1 on 21st April, 2014 along with a cheque of Rs.67,416/- . Defendant No. 1 vide a communication dated 3rd June, 2014 informed the plaintiff of being duly elected as an associate ‘C’ member and was instructed to pay the balance fees. The letter also stated that the plaintiff will be entitled to all the rights and privileges of a member of the club as per the Articles of Association.

4. Plaintiff has been availing these facilities since he became a member on 3rd June, 2014. Defendant No. 2 is the Ministry of Urban Land and Development, Govt. of India, who allotted 179 acres for the promotion of golf, fair and equitable access to sport facilities including to some of its employees. Defendant No. 2 exercises some control over defendant No. 1 including nomination of members to the club.

5. Plaintiff vide letter dated 23rd July, 2014 sought refund of Rs.44,120/- deposited in 2009 which was returned by defendant No. 1 with covering letter dated 14th August, 2014. The plaintiff states that he learnt from a well-wisher on 8th September, 2015 who is a member of defendant No. 1, that a resolution was passed by the general committee of defendant No. 1 to revoke his membership on 10th August, 2015. On receipt of this information the plaintiff logged onto the member’s area of defendant No. 1’s website to peruse the minutes of the meeting on 10th August, 2015. The minutes revealed that membership of the plaintiff was decided to be revoked at the behest of defendant No. 2 who decided to cancel his nomination as it was found to be in contravention of the rules and regulations/established procedures of the Govt. of India.

6. The plaintiff alleges that the rules that have been violated have not been mentioned, explained or detailed. Further no notice has been communicated proposing/threatening, cancellation/revocation of membership nor even the resolution to revoke his membership. The plaintiff submits that he till date continues to be a member and has abided by all regulations and by-laws including regular payment of fees. The plaintiff apprehends that defendant No. 1 may at any moment terminate/revoke his membership on the basis of said resolution.

7. The plaintiff avers that the resolution passed was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice as no notice was issued nor opportunity to be heard was given, as is provided in the Memorandum and Articles of Association. The plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 2 has only the right to nominate and not revoke its nomination. Removal of a member can only be as per the provisions of the Memorandum and Articles of Association.

8. In the interim application, plaintiff seeks interim ex-parte order restraining defendant from taking any steps pursuant to general committee meeting dated 10th August, 2015. Including cancellation/revoking membership or any form of restraint on plaintiff from using defendant No. 1’s facilities.

9. The plaintiff