Calcutta High Court
Jeet Banerjee vs The Calcutta Club Limited on 8 October, 2021
Author: Moushumi Bhattacharya
Bench: Moushumi Bhattacharya
OD - 8
ORDER SHEET
IA NO. GA/1/2021
CS/214/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
JEET BANERJEE
Vs
THE CALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Date : 08TH OCTOBER, 2021.
Appearance :
Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Deb, Adv.
Mr. D. K. Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. A. Daga, Adv.
...For the Petitioner
Mr. Jishnu Saha, Adv.
Mr. Saumya Majumder, Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. S. R. Ganguly, Adv.
...For the Defendant
The Court: The petitioner seeks an injunction on the respondent
from giving any effect to or acting in terms of the order of suspension dated 27th September, 2021. The grounds on which such restraint is prayed for is that the order of suspension proceeds beyond the terms of the show-cause notice; infraction of Article 45(c) of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the respondent Club and that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case under the relevant Article. The petitioner also challenges the order of suspension on 2 the ground that the petitioner was not furnished documents before the hearing given to the petitioner and that the impugned communication does not contain the decision of the Committee and does not bear the signatures of the members of the Committee of the Club.
The basis for resisting any interim order at this stage is that there has been no infraction of the relevant Rules or Bye-Laws and principles of natural justice have not been violated. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Club that four other members of the Club were suspended on the same day apart from the petitioner pursuant to the EoGM held on 12th December, 2020. It is also submitted that the relief sought for would have a bearing on the decisions taken at the EoGM which was attended by the petitioner.
On hearing learned Counsel, it appears prima facie, that the only grounds on which an internal decision of Club can be interfered with is :
(a) infraction of the rules governing the affairs of the Club and (b) violation of the principles of natural justice. It should also be recorded that this Court assumes jurisdiction in the matter on the order of suspension being received by the petitioner at the place where the petitioner works for gain which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
In the present case, the points with regard to the two aforesaid factors, must be answered in the context of Article 45(c). Under Article 45(c), if the Committee is of the opinion that a member commits an act of misconduct as defined in the Bye-Laws of the Club and within the 3 precincts of the Club, the Committee shall take cognizance of the said misconduct and hold an enquiry. The concerned member shall be given a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case before Committee and may also be given a personal hearing if the member so desires. Upon enquiry being completed if the Committee considers the member to be guilty of misconduct, the Committee may exercise its powers under Articles 45(a) and 46. Under Article 45(a), the Committee, upon taking cognizance of any breach of any Articles or Bye-Laws or Regulation etc, of the Club or any act of default on the part of a member and which in the opinion of the Committee is likely to disrupt the harmony of the Club or affect the character, stability or the good name of the Club, the Committee may call upon the offending member to resign his membership of the Club or suspend such member from all privileges of membership for a period not exceeding one year or convene a general meeting for the purpose of expelling the member.
The question therefore is whether the order of suspension has been passed contrary to or in violation of Article 45(c). It is evident from the material on record that the petitioner was given a hearing pursuant to a request made for such. In the petitioner's reply dated 11th September, 2021 to the show cause the petitioner asked for copies of documents to be given to the petitioner. A hearing was given to the petitioner on 12th September, 2021.
4
Hence it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case before the Committee or was deprived of a personal hearing as mandated under Article 45(c).
The other fact which the Court must take into consideration for exercise of discretion is the sequence of events culminating in the impugned order of suspension. Admittedly, the order of suspension can be traced to the resolutions taken at the EoGM of the Club held on 12th December, 2020 wherein a forensic audit by a reputed firm was called for in relation to the relevant financial years. The petitioner admittedly participated in the EoGM. The Report of the Auditor is of 28th July, 2021 pursuant to which the show cause was issued on 18th August, 2021. The petitioner's reply is of 5th September, 2021. The petitioner was given a personal hearing before the Committee on 12th September, 2021. The chain of events commence from 12th December, 2020 and culminate in the order of suspension dated 27th September, 2021. The petitioner has approached this Court on 4th October, 2021. The span and length of events is an important factor which would deter the Court from passing any order at this stage without an opportunity being given to the parties to bring further evidence on record. The Court is also disinclined to restrain the respondent from proceeding in terms of the order of suspension as that would in effect upend and reverse all the decisions taken from 12th December, 2020. This view is reinforced by the prayers in the plaint which include a decree for delivery up of and cancellation of 5 the resolutions adopted at the EoGM and for a decree adjudging the Report of the Auditor dated 28th July, 2021 as void.
At the ad interim stage, an order which would have the effect of putting the parties in the position before the order of suspension was issued can only be granted if the petitioner is able to establish a prima facie case of infraction of the rules of the Club or breach of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner must also show irreparable injury apart from the balance of convenience being in favour of orders as prayed for. Since the petitioner has not founded the present action on any of the above grounds, this Court is not inclined to pass any ad interim order of injunction as prayed for. The parties shall be at liberty of filing their affidavits before the matter is taken up in the fifth week of November, 2021.
Affidavit-in-opposition be filed within one week after the Court reconvenes in November, 2021; reply within a week thereafter.
(MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.) S.De/SG