Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1329 (KAR)

B. v. Chandre Gowda VS Indiranagar Club

2020-07-06

P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT P S Dinesh Kumar, J. - Heard Shri. S.S. Ramdas, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and Shri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is presented by plaintiffs in O.S. No.2468/2020 challenging order dated 12th June 2020 passed by the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge directing only suit summons to defendants and not granting ex parte injunction orders. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status in the original suit. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, plaintiffs and defendants No. 6 to 9 are members of the Managing Committee of the Indiranagar Club. Defendant No.2 is the President, defendant No.3 is Secretary, defendant No.4 is Vice President and defendant No.5 is the Treasurer of the Club respectively. 5. On 28th November 2019, a Managing Committee Meeting was held with regard to an anonymous petition containing allegation of misuse of party halls causing financial loss to the Club. On 3rd December 2019, defendants No. 2 and 3 called for an emergency meeting to take certain decisions to cancel the appointment of a Three-member Committee. On 5th December 2019, the Committee submitted its Report. On 16th January 2020, another emergency meeting of the Managing Committee was held. According to the plaintiffs, the meeting held on 16th January 2020 was legally called and lawful deliberations were conducted. Subsequently, on 9th February 2020, the Vice President (defendant No.4), the Treasurer (defendant No.5) and (defendant No.7) the Managing Committee Member were suspended. On 29th February 2020, defendants No.2, 3, 8 and 9 who were the only members present in the meeting, passed a resolution to alter the Bank operation mandates given to various Banks in which Club maintains its accounts. 6. With the above pleadings on facts, plaintiffs filed the instant suit before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru for a judgment and decree inter alia to declare the Special General Body Meeting held on 9th February 2019 and the decision taken therein to suspend defendants 4, 5 and 7 as illegal. 7. The learned City Civil Judge, on 12th June 2020 has passed the following order: "Perused, plaint & I.As. and documents. Considering the nature of interim relief sought, it is just and necessary to hear the defendants prior to grant of any interim order. 7. The learned City Civil Judge, on 12th June 2020 has passed the following order: "Perused, plaint & I.As. and documents. Considering the nature of interim relief sought, it is just and necessary to hear the defendants prior to grant of any interim order. Issue emergent suit summons to defendants if P.F. furnished. By 29/06.' Sd/- 12/6" 8. Plaintiffs are aggrieved that learned Trial Judge has not considered and granted ex parte interim orders on their applications seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, to restrain the defendants from enforcing suspension of defendants No. 4, 5 and 7; to direct defendants No.2 and 3 to convene Managing Committee Meeting within seven days and to restrain defendants No. 2 and 3 from operating all Bank accounts of the Club. Hence, this writ petition. 9. Shri.Ramadas, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the purported suspension of defendants No. 4, 5 and 7 in the Meeting held on 9th February 2020 is grossly illegal. There are in all 13 Managing Committee Members. The minimum quorum required to conduct any meeting is six members. However, on 29th February 2020, only four members namely defendants No. 2, 3, 8 and 9 have passed the illegal resolution to alter the Bank Operation Mandates given to various Banks in which the Club maintains its accounts. The resultant position is, the members now authorized to operate the Bank accounts can misuse the funds of the Club. Therefore, there is grave urgency and it merits grant of interim orders. The learned Trial Judge, without appreciating the gravity of situation and without recording any reasons for not granting the interim orders has merely directed suit summons. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this writ petition. He placed reliance on following two authorities: Kishore Kumar, (2006) 3 SCC 312 (paragraphs No. 8, 9 and 13) R.K.Jain Vs. P.G.Chako, (2013) AIR Karnataka 142 10. Shri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate for caveator/respondents, opposing the writ petitions, submitted that there are serious allegations of sexual harassment against defendants No. 4, 5 and 7. A decision was taken in the Special General Body Meeting on 9th February 2020 to place the said defendants under suspension. P.G.Chako, (2013) AIR Karnataka 142 10. Shri.Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate for caveator/respondents, opposing the writ petitions, submitted that there are serious allegations of sexual harassment against defendants No. 4, 5 and 7. A decision was taken in the Special General Body Meeting on 9th February 2020 to place the said defendants under suspension. Shri. Muniswamy (defendant No.4) has already filed O.S. No.25515/2020 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru inter alia praying for a judgment and decree to declare the Special General Body Meeting held on 9th February 2020 and the communication declaring his suspension from the Membership of the Club as illegal. Along with the plaint, the defendant No.4 also filed inter locutary applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 seeking interim orders. The said applications have been supported by his Affidavits as also defendants No. 5 and 7. The Trial Court has refused to grant any interim order. The defendants therein have entered appearance and the next date of hearing is 13th July 2020. The relief sought for in the instant suit, in substance, is similar to the relief sought in O.S. No.25515/2020. 11. Shri.Holla further argued that under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure, Court is duty bound to direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay. He further argued that plaintiffs have presented the instant suit on 9th June 2020 seeking a declaration that the decision taken on 9th February 2020 to suspend defendants No. 4, 5 and 7 as illegal, after lapse of four months. Therefore, there is no urgency in the matter. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. 12. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 13. Grievance of plaintiffs is, the Trial Court has not granted ex parte interim injunction orders on their applications. 14. As recorded hereinabove, the learned Trial Judge has ordered only notice. 15. The main prayer in the suit is for declaration that the meeting held on 9th February 2020 and the decisions taken therein are illegal. Admittedly, suit has been presented on 9th June 2020. 16. 14. As recorded hereinabove, the learned Trial Judge has ordered only notice. 15. The main prayer in the suit is for declaration that the meeting held on 9th February 2020 and the decisions taken therein are illegal. Admittedly, suit has been presented on 9th June 2020. 16. Shri.Holla is right in his submission that the prayer contained in O.S. No. 25515/2020 filed by Shri. Muniswamy (defendant No.4) against Indiranagar Club are, in substance, similar to those contained in the instant suit. The said suit is in progress. Further, the instant suit has been filed after lapse of four months. 17. Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure mandates issuance of notice to the defendants except where it appears to the Court that delay in granting injunction would defeat the object. 18. In Kishore Kumar Khaitan, (2006) 3 SCC 312 relied upon by Shri. Ramadas, it is held that interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. Further, in paragraph No.13, it is held that failure to render necessary findings to support its order would also be a jurisdictional error liable to correction. 19. In paragraph No.13 of R.K.Jain, (2013) AIR Karnataka 142 relied upon by Shri.Ramadas, it is held that jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised sparingly and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. Thus, on facts, the authorities cited on behalf of the plaintiffs do not lend any support to their case. 21. In the facts of this case, the learned Trial Judge has rightly followed Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure and ordered suit summons. 22. The earlier suit, O.S. No.25515/2020 on the very same subject is already pending and the Club is party defendant in that suit so also in this suit. This suit has been brought four months after the meeting. 23. In view of above discussion, I find no error in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge calling for any interference. 24. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.