The court affirmed that an internal club decision regarding suspension cannot be challenged without prior legal compliance, limiting judicial review of such organizational actions.

ORDER :

The revision has been filed by the plaintiff, aggrieved by the order of dismissal of an interlocutory application for interim relief in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in pending CMA.No.19 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.I have heard Mr.Murugendran, learned counsel for Mr.Nagendran Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ravichandran Sundaresan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 & 6.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Murugendran, would state that the plaintiff has questioned the show cause notice dated 06.11.2023 issued by the 2^nd defendant as being arbitrary, illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction to restrain the 2^nd defendant from taking any adverse action against the plaintiff either for suspension / expulsion from the 1^st defendant/Club. He would state that the petitioner is a member of the 2^nd defendant/Club and the respondents are the office-bearers. One Nirmal Kumar was prevented from entering the Club, however the petitioner had supported the said Nirmal Kumar, in view of the order of a competent Civil Court granting an injunction favouring the said Nirmal Kumar. However, in a vindictive manner, the office-bearers of the Club had called for an explanation from the petitioner for misconduct.

4.Referring to the said notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that apart from the incident relating to Nirmal Kumar, even past and forgotten incidents were raked up, only with ulterior motives against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the injunction application was initially taken up by the Trial Court in the present suit, after the respondents had entered appearance and on order of status quo order was in fact granted and subsequently extended from time to time and was in force till disposal of the interlocutory application on 28.04.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that immediately after the dismissal of the interlocutory application against the petitioner, the respondents have issued a notice on the very next day i.e 29.04.2025 and called upon the petitioner to offer his explanation, giving virtually no time to respond and proceeded to pass a suspension order since the petitioner did not give his explanation.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the reply given by the petitioner to the said letter dated 01.05.2025, where the petitioner has only sought for further time to offer his explanation, in view of the fact that he intended to challenge the order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 by way of filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. He would further state that despite the said reply dated 01.05.2025, the respondents have gone ahead and suspended the petitioner. Subsequently, CMA.No.19 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner, in which the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2025, wherein the petitioner has sought for an interim stay of the suspension order dated 03.05.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent, pending disposal of the said CMA.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that there was also a parallel proceedings, in and whereby the Corporation of Chennai, the original owner of the lands which have been leased in favour of the Club had sought for recovering the said lands from the Club. The Division Bench of this Court had directed the Club to handover possession within a period of three months to the Corporation of Chennai. The respondent/Club moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in