Regulatory classifications in horse racing to prevent monopolization are justified and do not violate equality principles.

JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 28038/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC

1. The present application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Grant an Ex Parte order temporarily injuncting the Defendant No.1 from enforcing the concept of 'family unit'quanumber of horses that can be owned by the Plaintiff/ registered owner;

b) Grant an Ex Parte order temporarily injuncting the Defendant No. 1 from enforcing the undated notice and applying the concept of ' family unit'tothenumberofhorsesthatcanparticipateinarace/meeting;

c) Grant an Ex Parte Stay on the operation, implementation, and enforcement of General Condition No. 12 of the Delhi Meeting 2025- 2026 Prospectus and the undated circular issued by Defendant No. 2, duringthependencyoftheaccompanyingsuit”

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF

2. In brief, the case set up by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff along with his family members are in the occupation of breeding horses, who are trained as race horses and take part in professional races all over the country.

3. The defendant no.3 is the principal governing and regulatory body for horse racing in Western and Northern India. The defendant no.3 has formulated the Rules of Racing of Royal Western India Turf Club, Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Rules’), which govern all aspects of horse racing in North India.

4. The defendant no.1 is affiliated race club of the defendant no.3, which conducts horse races in Delhi, in accordance with the Rules of defendant no.3. The defendant no.1 publishes a Prospectus every year, which contains the race days and the conditions that govern the races for that year.

5. The defendant no.2 is the office bearer of defendant no.1.

6. On 1^st August, 2025, the defendant no.3 published its Racing Calendar for the year 2025, which contained general conditions of the racing season 2025, commencing from August 2025.

7. In the said Calendar, the defendant no.3 capped the maximum number of stables, which the owner could avail, at 80, as the total number of stables available for allocation was limited to 1300. The defendant no.3 also introduced the concept of ‘family unit’, which recognized all owners who are spouse/ son/ daughter as a single unit, with the intent that such unit would be entitled up to a maximum of 80 stables.

8. The plaintiff, along with his wife and daughter, collectively own about 70 horses and at present, 45 of their horses are stationed at the stables of the defendant no.1.

9. In September 2025, the defendant no.1 published its Prospectus for the Delhi Meeting 2025-2026 (hereinafter ‘Prospectus’), setting out the general conditions applicable to the current horse racing season, beginning from 16^th September 2025 to 30^th December 2025.

10. The defendant no.1 introduced General Condition no.12 in the said Prospectus, limiting the maximum number of horses to 40 that can be kept by a ‘family unit’. General Condition no.12 also put a three-horse participation cap in a race applicable to a ‘family unit’.

11. Subsequently, an undated circular signed by the defendant no.2 was issued which provided that horses in excess of three (3) of a ‘family unit’, would be balloted out by draw of lots.

12. On 14^th October, 2025, when the plaintiff tried to enter three (3) of his horses along with one horse of his wife in a scheduled race, the defendant no.1 balloted out one of the horses of the plaintiff, which caused immense monetary loss as well as loss to the reputation of the plaintiff.

13. The plaintiff sent an email dated 12^th October, 2025, protesting against the aforesaid refusal by the defendant no.1, which was followed by a legal notice dated 13^th October, 2025. However, no response was received by the plaintif