A trial court cannot grant sweeping ad-interim or mandatory relief interfering with the internal disciplinary proceedings of an association without providing a reasoned analysis demonstrating patent illegality, mala fides, or a clear violation of natural justice.

P.C. :

1. The present Appeal from Order impugns the order dated 7th May 2026, by which the learned Judge at the Bombay City Civil Court has granted ad-interim reliefs to original Plaintiff/Respondent no.1 herein.

2. Mr. Girish Godbole, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and perverse as it does not provide any reasons or basis for granting the ad interim reliefs. The findings are cryptic and the trial Court has erred in holding that Appellant no.1 has not followed the principles of natural justice whie expelling Respondent no.1 from the Club. He submits that Appellant no.1 has followed due process in the disciplinary proceedings by issuing a show cause notice dated 22nd February 2026 to which replies were filed by Respondent no.1 on 25th February 2026 and 10th March 2026. Thereafter, a three-member Inquiry Committee considered the replies and granted a personal hearing Respondent No.1. On 25th April 2026, the Inquiry Committee submitted its Report to the Managing Committee with its findings that Respondent no.1 and two other members had violated certain bail conditions, exposing the Club to potential legal and reputational risks. Accordingly, action was recommended against them under the bye-laws of the Club. On 27th April 2026, the Managing Committee accepted the Report and resolved to expel Respondent No.1 and two other members from the Club for a period of six years with effect from 27th April 2026. On 5th May 2026, the present suit was filed and heard for urgent reliefs on 6th May 2026.

3. According to Mr. Godbole, the impugned order virtually grants the final relief sought in the suit and nullifies the findings recorded by the Inquiry Committee at the ad-interim stage. The Managing Committee was fully competent to take the impugned decision under the bye-laws of the Club and in the absence of any demonstrable illegality or breach of natural justice, there was no justification or urgency warranting the passing of the impugned order, particularly when the nomination forms for the ensuing elections were to be filed only in July 2026. The Appellants ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity to file their affidavit in reply before any ad-interim orders were passed. He contends that a civil court has limited jurisdiction in matters concerning the internal affairs and disciplinary actions of a Club and a civil court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the disciplinary authority or reassess the sufficiency of the material considered by it. Judicial interference is warranted only in case of mala fides or violation of the principles of natural justice, neither of which is demonstrated in this case. In support of his submissions, Mr. Godbole relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.P. Daver vs. Lodge Victoria No.363 S.C. Belgaum and Others ¹1992 SCC OnLine SC 47 and order dated 5th September 2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal (Lodging) No.643 of 2006 in Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. & Others vs. Vinayak J.Gaekwad and Others²Appeal (Lodging) No.643 of 2006. In these circumstances, Mr. Godbole submits that the impugned order deserves to be stayed and in any case at least until a reply affidavit is filed by the Appellants, whereafter the application for interim reliefs can be heard and decided on its own merits.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Shiraz Rustomji, the learned senior counsel for Respondent no.1 opposes the Appeal