Dismissed

The Bandra Gymkhana and Anr. v. Cyril L. Vas

Bombay HC18 Oct 2007CAF/4637/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge oral judgment, an appeal against a civil court order declaring the expulsion of a gymkhana member illegal, dismissed the application. The court held the civil court cannot interfere with a private club's decision made in good faith and after due process, citing limited jurisdiction of civil courts over domestic tribunals.

What did the court decide?

Interim order granting suspension of membership was upheld; Civil Application disposed of.

The Bandra Gymkhana and Anr. Vs Cyril L. Vas — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4637 OF 2007 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.2219 OF 2007

¶5

The Bandra Gymkhana & anr. Appellants vs. Cyril L. Vas Respondent Mr.D.Zaiwala, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Owen Menezes i/b.Mr.Nitin G. Raut for the appellants.

¶6

Mr.Nihar Ghag i/b. Mr.Ashish S. Naik for the respondent.

¶7

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 18th October, 2007

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶9

By order dated 10th September, 2007 this Court has

¶10

admitted the appeal and expedited the same.

¶11

2.	The	appellants	being	agg	rieved	by the	judgem	ent and
order	dated	6.8.2007	passed	by	the	City	Civil	Court,
Mumbai in	SC Suit No.2	213/2004, prefer	red the pres	ent
Appeal.
3.	The	respondent	herein	is	the	member	of	appellant
no.1-Bandra	Gy	mkhana.	The		other	appellants	are	the
Managing	Committ	ee membe	rs/Trustees		of	the Gymk	hana.	As
the	original-pl	aintiff	was		expelled	by		letter/order
dated	17.4.2004	a Sui	t cam	e	to	be	filed.	After

¶12

¶13

considering the rival contentions, the suit came to be allowed in terms of prayer (a) which is reproduced as under:

¶14

	(a) th	at it	be declare	d that the		Order	of
	Expulsion	dated	17.4.2004	Exhibit "	E"	to	the
	Plaint, rules of natur and not bindin	is b al justice, perverse, g on the Plaintiff.	ad, illegal, malafide	bias,	a	gainst	the
4.	The Gym	khana and/or	such oth	er clubs	are	governed	by
their	private	Rules and	Regulations	(Rules).		As	per
these	Rules,	even on	an applica	tion filed	by	any	party,
the	Managing	Committee	(the Co	mmittee)	nor	mally	take
decision	either	to a	ccept and/or	even to		reject	any
proposal	for	membership.	The	rules auth	orise	them	to
even	reject	such a	pplication	without	ass	igning	any

¶15

reason. The decision of the Committee in such matter

¶16

shall normally attain finality.

¶17

5.		The	law	in	this	regard	gov	erning t	he	princi	ple for
expulsion			of	Gymkham	a/club	mem	bers	has	been		elaborated
in	T.		P.	Daver	v.	L	odge	Victoria	No	.363,	S.C.Belgaum

¶18

& ors., AIR 1963 SC 1144. The elaborated principles are

¶19

as follows:

¶20

"9.	The following prin	ciples	may	be	gathered
from	the above discussion,	(1)A	mem	ber of	a
masonic	lodge is bound	to a	bide	by the	rules
of	the lodge; and if	the	rules	provide	for
expulsion,	he shall be	expelled	only	in	the
manner	provided by the	rules,	(2)	The	lodge
is	bound to act strict	ly acc	ording	to	the
rules;	whether a	par	ticular	rule	is

¶21

¶22

	mandato	ry	or directory falls	to	be decided	in
	each		case, having regard	t	o the well	settled
	rules	of	construction in	that	regard, (3)	The
	jurisdict	ion	of a Civil		Court is	rather
	limited;		it cannot ob	viously	sit as a	court
	of	app	eal from decisions	of	such a body;	it
	can	set	aside the order	of	such a body,	if
	the	s	aid body acts	with	out jurisdiction	or
	does	not	act in good	f	aith or acts	in
	violation justice a supra."	s explain	of the ed in the decisions cited	prin	ciples of	natural
6.	In	view	of this, a member	of	such Gymkhama/Cl	ub is
bound	to	abide	by the Rules of	the	Gymkhana/Club.	The
Gymkhana/C	lub	is	also bound to	act	within the	frame
work	of	the	Rules. The proced	ure	for expulsion of	any
members	need	to	be followed.	Having	once completed	the
requisite	for	malities	within the	frame	work of	the
Rules,	the	pow	er of Court in	such	matter to	interfere
in the	dec	ision	taken by the C	ommitt	ee is very	limited.
The	Gy	mkhana	membership and/or	thei	r activities in	the
private	dom	ain.	Here again	sc	ope of	Court’s

¶23

interference being decision taken by such Gymkhana/club

¶24

is very limited.

¶25

7.	In	the		present		case,	consi	dering	the	reasoning
given	and	in	view	of	the	grou	nds	raised,	I am	of the
view	that	at	this	prima		facie	stage	of	the	proceeding

¶26

the prayer clause as granted considering the basic

¶27

principles, as referred above is not correct.

¶28

To support that, further facts & averments are as

¶29

¶30

under:

¶31

" He insinuated that the Hon.General Secretary was helping the Contractor on "Highway Robbery". He further threatened the Trustees of the Bandra Gymkhana.

¶32

He accused the Managing Committee of malafide intentions - see Honourable Ms.Justice Roshan Dalvi’s order dated 13.11.2007 upheld by High Court His Honourable Justice S.J.Vazifdar.

¶33

He further accused the Trustees of lies and indulging in half-truths and manipulation of facts.

¶34

He accused the Committee of "protecting" the contractor.

¶35

He has also made unsubstantiated a	nd d	efamatory
statements against the Managing	Committee	and
Hon.General Secretary as well as cast	aspirations	about
the Former President Mr.Raphael B. Donald	who was	a
Senior Retired Government Bureaucrat and	who serve	d as
Jt.Secretary, Government of Maharashtra in Development Department and has been in the service with the Government for over 40 years.	the	Urban
He made an imputation that the Managing Committee held the EGM with malacious intent.
He extolled a member’s action of un	authorisedly	seizing
the peg measure and keeping the same outside the Bandra Gymkhana premises.
He brought in Excise Officials to carry out raids and not having denied the same.
I say that the charges against the six	other	members
were not grave. I crave leave to refer	to and	rely
upon the Emergency Disciplinary Committe 30.3.2004. Herewith to annexure exhibits	e report "2",	dated "3",
"4", "5" & "6" xerox copies of the Show	Cause Noti	ce to
Christopher Rodrigues, Farokh Ka	madia,	Francis
Lawrence, Ralph Fernandex, Levin DeFigueiredo and Stephen Rodrigues respectively.
I say that the Respondent cannot be equated with the other six members."
9. After perusal of those documents and	averments,	I

¶36

¶37

am	also con	vinced	at	thi	s stag	e of	the proceedin	g that
prima	facie ther	e is	a		sufficient	materia	l on reco	rd to
justify	that	the	appell	ant	had	complied	with all	the
formalities.		Having	comp	lied	with	the	same, there	is
no	question	of	interfere	nce	by	the	Civil Court,	merely
because	in		similarly			situated	cases,	the
appellant/G	ymkhana	had	taken		some	different	view.	We
are	not co	ncerned	wi	th	the	power	and/or	authority
and/or	not	testing	the		Tribunal’s	power	under	Article
14	of the	Constit	ution	of	India.	In	such case,	the
facts	and	circum	stances		need	detailed	scrutiny.	The
allegations	as	raised	and		the	action a	s taken	against
the	respondent-	plaintiff	at		this	stage	of	the

¶38

proceeding just cannot be said to be beyond the record

¶39

and/or contrary to the law or the rules.

¶40

10. the	The Gymk	decision hana/club	as was	taken based	by on	the the	Managing material	Committee of available

¶41

on record and after giving full opportunity to the plaintiff-respondent.

¶42

11.		Admittedl	y,	during	the	trial	there		was	no	interim
order	in	favour	of	the	plaintiff.		He	was	not		allowed

¶43

to use and utilise the membership as claimed, as suspended.

¶44

¶45

noted	above,	it	is always	a private	dom	ain.	In	such
circumstanc	es, I	am	of the	view that	it	will	not	be in
the	interest	of	the app	ellant/Gymkhana		an	d/or	other
members	to	allow	the pl	aintiff/respondent		no.1	to	use
and	utilise	the	membership	as grante	d	by	the	trial

¶46

court. The balance of convenience also lies in favour

¶47

of the appellant/Gymkhana.

¶48

13.	The	learn	ed	counsel	for	t	he respondent	basically
contended	that	aft	er	conside	ring		the material	available
on	record,	inc	luding	objecti	on	as	raised, the	trial
court	has	granted	the	decre	e	and,	therefore, he	may be
allowed	to	enjoy	the	mem	bershi	p	pursuant to the	prayer
(a)	as grant	ed.	In	view	of	the	reasoning as	recorded
above,	I	am	not	inclined	to	ac	cept this	submission.
The	Apex	Court,		as	ref	erred	above, has	already

¶49

clarified the power of the Civil Court to interfere in

¶50

such matters.

¶51

14.	The	submission that by	a major	ity, a	group	of the
appellan	t/club,	took malafide	action	against		respondent
no.1.	Som	e decisions even b	y the	majority,	in	some
cases,	in	view of internal	politics	or g	roupism	cannot
be	treated	as final and binding.	The	Court	has	power
to	consider	the merit of the	action	of such		Committee
or	the gr	oup.A bonafide and	a	genuine	actio	n of

¶52

minority members can be gone into in a given case but

¶53

¶54

not in the present case. The facts are glaring.

¶55

602, Maclean vs.The Workers’ Union, an English

¶56

judgement illustrated this in the following words:

¶57

	"That	the	Cour	ts ha	d	onl	y a	limited
	jurisdiction		over		domesti	c	tribunals,	and
	could	not	give	redress		to	members	of
	associations decisions under though the ru unjust."	the les or deci	on given rules sions were	whom honestly of unfair or	hardsh and such	ip in a	was worked good ssociations,	by faith even
16.	In	the	present	case,	as	noted,	full opp	ortunity
was	given to	the	plaintiff	and	that	was	well within	the
frame	work o	f the	Rules	of the	Gym	khana.	Having	once
taken	that	de	cision,	the all	egations		of dis	honestly

¶58

and/or bad faith are unacceptable in view of the

¶59

material available on the record.

¶60

17.	The	Apex	Court	in	Jethama	l vs.	Unio	n of	India,
AIR	1970	SC	1310	has	further	pointed	out	that	the
requirement	is	to		follow	the	prin	ciple	of	natural
justice.	Ha	ving	once		followed	that	and	the	person
failed	to	take	opport	unity	and	therefo	re any		decision
taken	based	on	the	materia	l ava	ilable	which	cannot	be
tested again	on the prin	ciple of br	each of	natural

¶61

justice.

¶62

¶63

18.	Lastly,	in	Royal	West	ern	India	Turf	Club	Ltd.	&
ors.	vs.	Vi	nayak	J.	Gae	kwad	& or	s., 20	06 (5)	Bom.
Cases	Reporter		581,	the	Div	ision	Bench	of	this	Court
again	re-iter	ated	ab	out		the	d	omestic	T	ribunal’s
decision	and	the	powe	r of	C	ivil	Court	to	interfere	in
the	same,	by	further	obs	erving	tha	t "W	here	on fact	s of
case,	domestic		Trib	unals		takes		particu	lar	decision
Civil	Court	is	not	expe	cted	to	substi	tute	its view	for
that	of do	mestic		Tribunal	un	less	it is	based	on	no
evidence	or	is	some	thing	whi	ch	a re	asonable	man	cannot
arrive	at.".	In		the	present	case	, in	my	view,	the
decision	as	taken		cannot	be	said	to	be	without	any

¶64

material or in the breach of principles of natural

¶65

justice.

¶66

19.	Taking	all	this	into		account,	I am	of	the	view
that	the	interim	order		as	granted	by	the	trial	Court
which	has	been	contin	ued		by this	Court		on	10.9.2007

¶67

shall continue till the decision of the First Appeal. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶68

[ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.]

The Bandra Gymkhana and Anr. v. Cyril L. Vas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bandra Gymkhana and Anr. v. Cyril L. Vas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangeeta Sanya Pattekar and Ors. Vs Nayeeman Khatoon Abdul Gaffar Ansari

Vinod Kumari Dhawan Vs Mela Ram Dhawan

Nayeeman Khantoon Abdul Gaffar Ansari Vs Sangeeta Sanya Pattekar and Othrs

Anand Narayan Khaladkar and Anr. Vs Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Radheshyam Haribax Rungta Vs Kamta Prasad Harilal Agrahari

Gaurishankar Process and Ors. Vs Mahavir Sales Corporation and Anr.