Disposed

Sri M Nagendra v. M/S Domlur Club

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022MFA/3842/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal challenges the dismissal of an interim injunction application regarding a club member's right to contest elections. The High Court disposed of the appeal without deciding merits, granting liberty to the appellant to approach the civil court for a fresh temporary injunction application within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to appellant to file application for temporary injunction before civil court for decision within eight weeks.

Sri M Nagendra Vs M/S Domlur Club — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3842/2022 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M NAGENDRA S/O SRI. MUNIHANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS FOUNDER MEMBERSHIP NO.69 DOMLUR CLUB NO.131, 3RD CROSS, DARSHAN HOUSE DOMLUR LAYOUT BENGALURU 560 071 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

¶9

... APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUKUMARAN G, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S DOMLUR CLUB REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY NO.3, 4TH MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560 071

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. HARISH V.S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.22.04.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN O.S.NO.6520/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH NO.28), DISMISSING IA NO.1 FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶16

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The dispute in the suit in O.S.No.6520/2021 is between a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 i.e., a recreational and social club and one of its members. The appellant, such member, has filed the suit in O.S.No.6520/2021 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ' the civil Court ') impugning the respondent - the club's Resolutions dated 22.09.2019 and 31.01.2021 in the corresponding Annual General Meeting and for permanent injunction. The appellant's interim application (I.A.No.1) is for injunction

¶19

¶20

restraining the respondent from preventing the appellant from contesting Annual General Body election for the years 2021-2023, which was scheduled to be held on 12.12.2021.

¶21

The civil Court by the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 has rejected this application. The civil Court, in rejecting this application, has concluded that the appellant has suppressed material facts inasmuch as he did not disclose that he had suffered a decision vide the Resolution in the General Body Meeting on 22.09.2019 where unanimously it is decided to recall the order dated 09.04.2004 for readmitting the appellant as a member and upholding the decision of the General Body on 20.01.2002 to remove the appellant from membership. The civil Court has observed, after a perfunctory reference to the respondent's Byelaws, that the decision of the respondent's General Body would prevail, as the General Body would be the ultimate authority in all matters.

¶22

¶23

Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, the learned Senior

¶24

counsel, submits that the appellant's application (I.A.No.1) could be presently rendered infructuous because the elections are held and successful candidates returned, but the civil Court's findings would impede consideration of any further application by the appellant. In fact, he submits that the appellant has filed an application (I.A.No.1/2022) before this Court for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from preventing the appellant from exercising his rights and privileges as a founder member of the respondent.

¶25

Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy submits that the question of re-inducting the appellant as a member, after his removal, was discussed in the General Body Meeting held on 20.01.2002. Though the appellant's request for reinduction was rejected for certain reasons, but the same was subject to the observation that the Managing Committee, because it is conferred with certain specific

¶26

¶27

powers under the Byelaws, could reconsider the induction. The Managing Committee has subsequently considered the appellant's request and he is re-inducted on 13.04.2004 and his re-induction is on the condition that he shall not contest elections for one term. The appellant has thereafter participated in different Annual General Body meetings and he has also contested the elections for the Managing Committee during the year 2010, though unsuccessfully.

¶28

Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy emphasizes that one

¶29

of the other members of the respondent, when the elections for the years 2010-2012 was announced, has called in question in O.S.No.26712/2010 the Managing Committee's decision on 09.04.2004 to re-induct the appellant. The respondent has filed written statement categorically stating that the decision to re-induct the appellant was taken by a majority in the Executive Committee. The plaint in this suit is ultimately rejected on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The civil

¶30

¶31

Court should have been considered these circumstances before it opined that the Managing Committee could not have re-inducted the appellant by its decision on 09.04.2004. The appellant is not issued with any prior notice, and no enquiry is held before the impugned resolution. In the absence of an enquiry, the impugned resolutions would be would be non-est . The appellant, until merits of the impugned Annual General Meeting decision dated 22.09.2019 is considered in the light of these circumstances, would be entitled to use the respondent's facilities as its member.

¶32

Though Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy relies upon the afore to persuade this Court could consider I.A.No.1/2022 and grant temporary injunction, he does not contest that the merits of such request must necessarily be considered at the first instance by the civil Court. However, he emphasizes that the findings in the impugned order

¶33

¶34

could be held against the appellant, if the application is filed before the civil Court.

¶35

Sri. Harish V.S., the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the appellant cannot succeed in this appeal, but he may file such application in the suit for injunction/necessary directions to permit him to use the facilities as a member until a final decision. However, all questions must be left open for reconsideration. When it is pointed out by Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy that the civil Court has taken more than seven [7] months to decide the present application, Sri. Harish V.S., submits that the respondent would co-operate with the civil Court in an expeditious disposal if such application is filed.

¶36

This Court, because the appeal is being disposed of with certain liberties to the appellant, would refrain from commenting on the legality of the conclusions in the impugned order except for observing that if any

¶37

¶38

application is indeed filed by the appellant, the same should be considered afresh dehors every finding in the impugned order. This Court would also observe that the aforesaid observation would become necessary because certain material circumstances have not been considered by the civil Court.

¶39

In the light of the above, the appeal stands disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file application for temporary injunction/direction to use the facility as a member. If such application is filed, the civil Court must, with the co-operation of both the appellant and the respondent, decide on the merits of such application within eight [8] weeks from the date of such application. The consideration of such application shall be in the light of the observation as aforesaid as regards the conclusions in the impugned order.

¶40

¶41

With the disposal of the appeal, the application (I.A.No.1/2022) would not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

Sri M Nagendra v. M/S Domlur Club

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Nagendra v. M/S Domlur Club

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt D K Vinoda Kumari Vs Shri K Venkatesh

Smt K M Manjula Vs Smt K M Prabhamani

The Deputy Director, Vs M/S Republic Saw Mill

Sri Raghurama Uppangala Vs the Executive Engineer

Sri Chandrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Janakamani Vs Smt. Kempamma