Madras High Court
Samson Premdoss vs Besant Nagar Club on 8 August, 2025
CRP.No.2912 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 01.08.2025 Order pronounced on : 08.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.2912 of 2025
& CMP.No.16427 of 2025
Samson Premdoss ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Besant Nagar Club,
Represented by the Secretary,
New No.21 (Old No.12),
III Avenue, Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600 090.
2.K.Pari
3.Ramkumar Rajagopal
4.T.D.Muthumkumar
5.Nirmal Kumar
6.The Committee,
Represented by Committee Member,
New No.21 (Old No.12),
III Avenue, Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600 090. ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the impugned order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in
C.M.A.No.19 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 on the file of the II Additional City
Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.Murugendran
for Mr.Nagendran Prasad
For Respondents : Mr.Ravichandran Sundaresan for RR1 to 4 & 6
No appearance for R5
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm )
CRP.No.2912 of 2025
ORDER
The revision has been filed by the plaintiff, aggrieved by the order of dismissal of an interlocutory application for interim relief in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in pending CMA.No.19 of 2025 dated 03.07.2025 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.I have heard Mr.Murugendran, learned counsel for Mr.Nagendran Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ravichandran Sundaresan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 & 6.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Murugendran, would state that the plaintiff has questioned the show cause notice dated 06.11.2023 issued by the 2nd defendant as being arbitrary, illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction to restrain the 2nd defendant from taking any adverse action against the plaintiff either for suspension / expulsion from the 1st defendant/Club. He would state that the petitioner is a member of the 2nd defendant/Club and the respondents are the office-bearers. One Nirmal Kumar was prevented from entering the Club, however the petitioner had supported the said Nirmal Kumar, in view of the order of a competent Civil Court granting an injunction favouring the said Nirmal Kumar. However, in a vindictive manner, the office-bearers of the Club had called for an explanation from the petitioner for misconduct.
2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025
4.Referring to the said notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner would state that apart from the incident relating to Nirmal Kumar, even past and forgotten incidents were raked up, only with ulterior motives against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the injunction application was initially taken up by the Trial Court in the present suit, after the respondents had entered appearance and on order of status quo order was in fact granted and subsequently extended from time to time and was in force till disposal of the interlocutory application on 28.04.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that immediately after the dismissal of the interlocutory application against the petitioner, the respondents have issued a notice on the very next day i.e 29.04.2025 and called upon the petitioner to offer his explanation, giving virtually no time to respond and proceeded to pass a suspension order since the petitioner did not give his explanation.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the reply given by the petitioner to the said letter dated 01.05.2025, where the petitioner has only sought for further time to offer his explanation, in view of the fact that he intended to challenge the order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 by way of filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. He would further state that despite the said 3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 reply dated 01.05.2025, the respondents have gone ahead and suspended the petitioner. Subsequently, CMA.No.19 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner, in which the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2025, wherein the petitioner has sought for an interim stay of the suspension order dated 03.05.2025 issued by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the said CMA.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that there was also a parallel proceedings, in and whereby the Corporation of Chennai, the original owner of the lands which have been leased in favour of the Club had sought for recovering the said lands from the Club. The Division Bench of this Court had directed the Club to handover possession within a period of three months to the Corporation of Chennai. The respondent/Club moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had initially granted status quo to be maintained. However, subsequently, the respondents have chosen to withdraw the SLP and since by that time, the revision petitioner, intending to oppose SLP proceedings and had sought impleadment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given liberty and recorded that the withdrawal of SLP would not affect or prejudice the rights of the revision petitioner. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property itself does not belong to the Club and therefore, it is not open to the respondents to prevent the petitioner from entering the Club or accessing the facilities, since admittedly as 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 on date, the property belongs to the Corporation of Chennai.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would also invite my attention to the findings of the Appellate Court in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.19 of 2025, where the case of the revision petitioner has been virtually accepted, but however for extraneous reasons, the Appellate Court has dismissed the said interlocutory application. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. Motor & General Traders, reported in 1975 SCC Online SC 117, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the passage in Patterson Vs. State of Alabama by the Supreme Court of the United States viz., ' We have frequently held that in the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction we have power not only to correct error in the judgment under review but to make such disposition of the case as justice requires. And in determining what justice does require, the Court is bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which has supervened since the judgment was entered', would contend that subsequent events can be taken note of, in order to do justice to the parties. He would also state that the Society, namely the Club itself has been declared as a defunct Society and therefore, the action initiated by Society is illegal and not binding on the petitioner. He would therefore contend that the interlocutory application was certainly maintainable and the Appellate Court ought to have 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 not only entertained but also allowed the same.
8.Per contra, Mr.Ravichandran Sundaresan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 & 6 would submit that the petitioner is a disgruntled former office-bearer of the Club and the only aim of the petitioner is to destabilize the functioning of the Club. He would further submit that admittedly even according to the petitioner, the petitioner has been suspended and the suspension order has not been challenged till date and therefore, he would state that there is no error or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. He would also contend that the suit has been filed only on the basis that the plaintiff/revision petitioner is a member of the Club and when admittedly he has been suspended pending the suit, without challenging the order of suspension, the petitioner cannot seek for stay of the suspension order in CMA, which is filed only challenging the order in I.A.No.2 of 2023, in and by which the petitioner sought only for an interim injunction to restrain the 2nd respondent from taking any adverse action against the petitioner for suspension/expulsion of the petitioner from the 1st respondent/Club, in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 06.11.2023.
9.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 would further 6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 submit that being a member, the petitioner is bound by the bye-laws of the Club and he cannot challenge the decisions taken, in house. With regard to the contentions of the the rights claimed in respect of the lands originally leased by the Corporation of Chennai and also the Society itself being defunct, the learned counsel would contend that steps have already been taken by the Club to regularize the registration of the Society and even insofar as the recalling of the lands by the Corporation of Chennai, the learned counsel would state that the Corporation has given a letter of acceptance with modified terms of rentals and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the Club has lost all its rights over the subject lands.
10.The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to & 6 would place reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
1.Sadashivanagar Club, Bangalore Vs. Nataraj (AIR 1994 Kant 195).
2.T.P.Daver Vs. Lodge Victoria No.363 S.C.Belgaum and Others (AIR 1963 SC 1144).
3.L.Nelson and Another Vs. Kallayam Pastorate and Others ((2006) 11 SCC 624).
11.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings, the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.1 of 2025, which is now under challenge.
7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025
12.The plaintiff, being a member of the 1st defendant Club, whose office- bearers have been arrayed as respondents 2 to 6, approached the Trial Court seeking a relief of declaration that the show cause notice dated 06.11.2023 was void, arbitrary, illegal, nonest and ultra vires of the Articles of the Association and also not binding on the plaintiff. An additional relief of permanent injunction to restrain the 2nd respondent from taking any adverse action against the plaintiff, either by suspension/expulsion from the Club, was also prayed as a main relief. Pending the suit in I.A.No.2 of 2023, the plaintiff sought for the very same relief by way of an interim order. No doubt, an order of status quo was ordered, but ultimately after enquiry, I.A.No.2 of 2023 came to be dismissed. Immediately after dismissal of the said IA, the respondents have called upon the petitioner to offer his explanation to the show cause notice already issued. In reply, without any delay, the petitioner has sought for further time to offer his explanation, contending that he is challenging the order of the Trial Court by way of filing CMA.
13.However, in view of the fact that the petitioner did not offer his explanation, the respondents have proceeded to suspend the petitioner from the Club. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed CMA.No.19 of 2025 and in the CMA, the petitioner has sought for an interim relief of stay of the suspension order dated 03.05.2025 issued by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of CMA. 8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 In this context, the First Appellate Court has found that though several issues have been raised with regard to the right of the Society to pass any orders, in view of the Society having been declared defunct and the Corporation of Chennai having cancelled the lease agreement, found that even according to the petitioner, if the Society was not subsisting, the suit should not have been filed against the Society, but against the individual members, arraying them as defendants in individual capacities and also took note of the fact that at the instance of the petitioner, the letter of acceptance regarding modified terms of lease rental between the Corporation of Chennai and the Club has also been stayed in W.P.No.11153 of 2025. However, considering all these factors, the First Appellate Court found that the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case for grant of an interim stay of the suspension order and proceeded to dismiss the interlocutory application.
14.It is only in this connection that the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu's case that was the case where the landlord had leased out separate portions of his building to several tenants and eviction proceedings were initiated against one of the tenants on the ground of own use and occupation, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority has dismissed the eviction petition, but in revision the High Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for 9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 fresh consideration, which again in turn remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, with liberty to the parties to lead evidence. Challenging the said remand order, the landlord filed a revision to the High Court. However, the High Court has dismissed the said revision and also the eviction petition. Challenging the supererogatory exercise of revision powers by the High Court, the landlord approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, claiming that the High Court had taken note of the factual position that the landlord had recovered another accommodation, pending the case and it had a material bearing on the maintainability of the eviction petition under Section 10(3) of the Act and in such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court was bound to consider any change, either in fact or in law, which had supervened since the judgment was entered and proceeded to confirm the findings of the High Court.
15.However, despite the said conclusion, taking note of special circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Rent Controller to take note of subsequent developments, after permitting the landlord to amend the eviction petition and thereafter decide the matter afresh. I do not see how the said ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would apply to the facts of the present case.
16.The very scope of the suit itself was to declare the show cause notice as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, with a further relief of permanent injunction to not pass any adverse orders in pursuance of the said 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 show cause notice. The very same relief sought for in the suit was also for by way of an interlocutory application, which has been admittedly dismissed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has also been suspended from membership of the Club. Admittedly, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said suspension order till date. The relief sought for in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in CMA.No.19 of 2025 is therefore, in my considered opinion outside the scope of enquiry in not only the said CMA, but also the suit as well. Without challenging the order of suspension, it is not proper for the petitioner to seek stay of the suspension order, that too in a CMA arising out of an interlocutory application, seeking to restrain the defendants from passing any adverse orders pursuant to the show cause notice. The prayer in the interlocutory application is not for an interim injunction, pending the CMA, to protect the petitioner's rights, but for interim stay of the suspension order which was not subject matter of challenge in the CMA.
17.The question with regard to the right of the Society to pass orders, in view of the fact that the Society has been defunct, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.Nelson's case, has held that when a Society has been declared as defunct because of statutory provisions under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, it would entail penal measures to be taken and in no situation, the election of office-bearers can be set aside on that ground. Further, it is also 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 brought to my notice that steps have been taken to regularize the registration of the Society. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any reason to compel myself to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the actions taken by the Club are illegal in view of the society being declared defunct.
18.In T.P.Daver's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a member of a masonic lodge is bound to abide by the rules of the lodge; and if the rules provide for expulsion, he shall be expelled only in a manner provided by the rules and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is very limited and it cannot sit as a court of appeal from decisions of such a body and it can set aside the order of such a body only if it is shown that the body has acted without jurisdiction or that it does not act good faith or acts in violation of principles of natural justice.
19.In Sadashivanagar Club's case, the High Court of Karnataka held that when the executive Committee had taken a decision to suspend the respondent, it is neither desirable nor proper for the Civil Court to sit in judgment over the wisdom or otherwise of the Executive Committee of the Society and the plaintiff, even if he does have a prima facie case, balance of convenience would not be in his favour and the respondent/plaintiff was not permitted to continue to be the Secretary and his injunction application was rejected. In the present 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 case as well, admittedly the interim order sought for by the petitioner in CMA is outside the scope of not only CMA but also the suit reliefs. The revision petitioner has not challenged the suspension order till date and without challenging the suspension order, it is not open to him to seek stay of the suspension order.
20.In view of the doctrine of indoor management, the petitioner being a member of the Society, is bound by any decisions passed by the Club and if at all the petitioner is able to make out a case that the decision of the Society is without jurisdiction or that it has been passed violating the principles of natural justice, it is for the petitioner to substantiate the same and challenge the order of suspension in a manner known to law and in the absence of any such challenge, the petition for stay of the suspension is not maintainable. I do not find any requirement to go into the dispute with regard to the Corporation of Chennai having recalled the lease and claimed recovery of possession and subsequent proceedings which are any way subject matter of the proceedings before the writ Court. The same has no relevance with regard to the prayer that have been sought for in I.A.No.1 of 2025, which is only seeking stay of suspension order. In the light of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Appellate Court dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2025.
13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025
21.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Murugendran, would state that as the CMA is pending, an observation may be made that that the Appellate Court shall not be prejudiced by any of the observations and discussions made herein above in the said order. The same is recorded. The First Appellate Court shall decide the pending CMA independently, on merits and without being prejudiced by any of the observations that may have been made in this order. The CMA may be disposed of within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.08.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata 14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 To The II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm ) CRP.No.2912 of 2025 P.B.BALAJI.J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.2912 of 2025 & CMP.No.16427 of 2025 08.08.2025 16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 05:43:13 pm )