Back
2017 Supreme(Ker) 510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. SOMARAJAN, J.
P.V. VINOD, S/O. LATEVISWANATHAN AND ORS. - PETITIONERS
Versus
MADHAVARAJA CLUB, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HONOURARY SECRETARY AND ORS. - RESPONDENTS
O.P.(C). No.3013 of 2015
Decided On : 05-04-2017
FOR THE PETITIONER: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.), S. SREEDEV
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: S. RADHAKRISHNAN, S. RAJ MOHAN, S. SUDARSANAN, KUM.R.ANJALI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the principle of audi alteram partem and the necessity of joining all relevant parties in a suit.
Headnote:
Admission Fee - Club Membership - Bye Law - Abdul Latheef v. Haneefa [2015 (3) KLT 299]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the inclusion of certain persons as members of a club and the increase in membership fee from Rs.3,00,000 to Rs.5,00,000. The Munsiff's Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from conducting the election for new members, but the first appellate court reversed the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute revolved around the induction of new members and the acceptance of their membership applications, but the 11 persons seeking membership were not made parties to the suit or the interim injunction application. The court held that the principle of audi alteram partem was not complied with and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was the induction of new members and the acceptance of their membership applications, as well as the non-joinder of the 11 persons seeking membership as parties to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of complying with the principle of audi alteram partem and the necessity of joining all relevant parties in a suit. It held that the suit and the interim injunction application were mischievous in nature and liable to be dismissed due to the non-joinder of necessary parties.
Final Decision: The original petition was dismissed by confirming the order of the first appellate court.
Challenge in this petition is against Exhibit P7 order in C.M.A.No.99 of 2015 dated 14.10.2015 of the Additional District Court, Palakkad by the plaintiffs/petitioners. A suit in O.S.No.430 of 2015 was filed challenging inclusion of certain persons as members of the first defendant club. Application in I.A.No.1497 of 2015 was filed for a declaration that induction of new members to the club without receiving admission fee in lumpsum in violation of the bye law is void. The practice prevailed as per the bye law in inducting new members is to receive membership fee in lumpsum and then they shall be put in a selection process by voting by its existing members. The said process is called as election of new members.
2. The main challenge is with respect to the inclusion of certain persons as new members to the club. It was also contended by the petitioners/plaintiffs that the membership fee payable was at Rs.3,00,000/-. The general body has decided to enhance the membership fee to Rs.5,00,000/-, as per the decision taken in the extra ordinary general body meeting held on 24.12.2014 with a condition that those who submit their applications on or before 31st March 2015 need pay only Rs.3,00,000/- and taxes. The increased membership fee of Rs.5,00,000/- and taxes will come into effect only from 01.04.2015 and those who submit the application after 31.03.2015, i.e. from 01.04.2015, alone need pay the increased fee of Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the amended bye law dated 24.12.2014, the membership fee can be received either by D.D. or by cheque or by cash and the cheque will be subject to realization before election. 11 new members have applied for getting membership within the cut-off date, 31.03.2015. Only two of them remitted the admission fee of Rs.3,00,000/- in lumpsum. Others effected only a part payment which was brought to the notice of this court by issuing a Commission who prepared an inventory.
3. The specific case advanced by the plaintiffs was that the first defendant was proceeding to elect the above said members as new members by conducting voting by all members. Their names and addresses were circulated to all members and the election was scheduled to be conducted on 06.06.2015 and hence the suit and the injunction application.
4. The Munsiff's Court on hearing both the parties granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from conducting election for electing ordinary members of the club against the amended bye law of the club with effect from 24.12.2014 by its order dated 24.06.2015. The matter was taken up in appeal in C.M.A.No.99 of 2015. The first appellate court reversed the order of the Munsiff's Court mainly on the reason that the election process has already been started and hence it is not proper to prevent the election process and the aggrieved person can challenge the election after its completion, relying on the decision drawn in Abdul Latheef v. Haneefa [2015 (3) KLT 299]. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/plaintiffs came up before this court.
5. Heard Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. The main challenge is with respect to the induction of 11 persons by accepting admission fee. There is no much dispute with respect to the fact that the membership fee was enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- from Rs.3,00,000/- as per the decision taken in the extra ordinary general body held on 24.12.2014. It is the further case of defendants that in that meeting it was also resolved to receive application up to 31.03.2015 at the old rate of admission fee of Rs.3,00,000/- and taxes and the increased membership fee of Rs.5,00,000/- with taxes would be applicable only with effect from 01.04.2015. It is an admitted case of both the parties that 11 persons have submitted their applications for ordinary membership of Rs.3,00,000/- before the cut-off date 31.03.2015. The challenge is with respect to those applications submitte
