IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:-

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA A.P.O 11 of 2023 With A.P.O.T 2 of 2023 with E.O.S 1 of 2022 Bhaskar Gupta -Vs-

Calcutta Club Limited & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Bodhisatta Biswas, Adv., For the respondent : Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Adv., Nos. 1 & 2 Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Adv., Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Indrani Majumdar, Adv.

Judgment on : 12.12.2025 SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.:

1. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit wherein the plaintiff sought a declaration that the Extra Ordinary General Meeting dated 12.12.2020 (hereinafter referred as ‘EOGM’), and all actions emanating there from be declared illegal and void. The plaintiff also sought similar declaration in respect of the consequential show cause dated 18/08/2021; and the notice of suspension of membership of the club for a period of one year with immediate effect, vide letter dated

27/09/2021; and consequences of these 2 letters.

2. The plaintiff also sought an injunction against the respondent Calcutta Club Limited (hereinafter referred as "club") a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1913, from in any manner giving effect to the EOGM.

3. In the suit, the plaintiff, who is a senior citizen and a qualified chartered accountant claimed to be a member of the club for over 40 years. He was elected as a committee member in the general committee of the club for 9 years. During the period 2018-19 the plaintiff was Chairman of the finance sub-committee of the club.

4. An election of the general committee of the club was held on

23/12/2020, as a result of which the committee was reorganized. A new committee by a show cause notice dated 18/08/2021 communicated the decision of the Managing Committee of the club as per resolution taken in the EOGM dated 12/12/2020. The resolution was founded on a forensic audit/review conducted by Ernst and Young (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No. 3’).

5. The substance of the alleged financial lapse detected by the forensic audit was that the plaintiff as Chairman of Finance sub-committee made investments without any communication to, or approval from the Managing Committee of the club; and that without obtaining quotations from 2-3 banks to compare interest rates, the plaintiff proceeded to make investments in Yes Bank Tier-I (one) bond to the tune of rupees one crore whereas the amount paid was Rs.1.12 crores, and further investment of an amount of Rs.1.5 crore in fixed deposit with one Jana Bank.

6. The plaintiff was called upon to submit his reply to the show cause within 7 days. The plaintiff submitted his reply and was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before the Committee on 11.09.2021 whereafter the Committee decided to suspend the plaintiff from all privileges of membership of the club for a period of one year with immediate effect. Decision of the Committee was communicated to the plaintiff vide letter dated 27.09.2021 issued under the signature of the

2nd defendant (secretary).

7. The suit was dismissed by the Hon'ble single judge by order dated

26/09/2022 as being not maintainable, which order is assailed in the present appeal.

8. At the very outset the learned Advocate for the club has raised a preliminary issue regarding the present appeal being filed as an appeal from an order.

9. It is submitted that after taking into consideration the provisions contained in the Companies Act 2013, including Sections 241, 242 and 430, the plaintiff's suit was held not maintainable by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Such decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge amounts to rejection of the plaint as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge, is thus a decree under Section 2 (2) CPC for which an appeal would lie under Section 96 CPC. The present appeal however, has been filed as an appeal from an order under Order XLIII Rule 1.

10. In support of his submis